Home | Sources Directory | News Releases | Calendar | Articles | RSS Sources Select News RSS Feed | Contact |  

Two-Nation Theory

Map of the British Indian Empire, 1909, showing the prevailing majority religions of the population for different districts.

The Two-Nation Theory is the ideology that the primary identity of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent is their religion, rather than their language or ethnicity, and therefore Indian Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nationalities, regardless of ethnic or other commonalities.[1][2] The Two Nation Theory was a founding principle of the Pakistan Movement (i.e. the Ideology of Pakistan), and the Partition of India in 1947.[3]

There are varying interpretations of the Two-Nation Theory, based on whether the two postulated nationalities can coexist in one territory or not, with radically different implications. One interpretation argued for sovereign autonomy, including the right to secede, for Muslim-majority areas of the Indian subcontinent, but without any transfer of populations (i.e. Hindus and Muslims would continue to live together). A different interpretation contends that Hindus and Muslims constitute "two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation."[4] In this version, a transfer of populations (i.e. the total removal of Hindus from Muslim-majority areas and the total removal of Muslims from Hindu-majority areas) is a desirable step towards a complete separation of two incompatible nations that "cannot coexist in a harmonious relationship".[5][6]

The Pakistan Movement drew inspiration from the Two Nation Theory. It stated that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural, and social rights, within or without a United India. The ideology that religion is the determining factor in defining the nationality of Indian Muslims is also a source of inspiration to several Hindu nationalist organizations, with causes as varied as the redefinition of Indian Muslims as non-Indian foreigners in India, the expulsion of all Muslims from India, establishment of a legally Hindu state in India, prohibition of conversions to Islam, and the promotion of conversions or reconversions of Indian Muslims to Hinduism.[7][8][9][10]

Opposition to the theory has comes from two sources. The first is the concept of a single Indian nation, of which Hindus and Muslims are two intertwined communities.[11] This is a founding principle of the modern, officially-secular, Republic of India. Even after the formation of Pakistan, debates on whether Muslims and Hindus are distinct nationalities or not continued in that country as well.[12] The second source of opposition is the concept that while Indians are not one nation, neither are the Muslims or Hindus of the subcontinent, and it is instead the relatively homogeneous former provincial units of the subcontinent which are true nations and deserving of sovereignty.[13][14][15]


[edit] History

The British colony of India was originally established, by stirring up internecine animosities. The British establishment openly appealed to the fanaticism of Mohammedans against Hindus for the special purpose weakening the agitation against unendurable economic, social and race oppression perpetrated by the colonialists.[16]The question of nationality was a fraught one in British India. In general, the British-run government and British commentators made "it a point of speaking of Indians as the people of India and avoid speaking of an Indian nation."[2] This was cited as a key reason for British control of the country: since Indians were not a nation, they were not capable of national self-government.[17] While some Indian leaders insisted that Indians were one nation, others agreed that Indians were not yet a nation but there was "no reason why in the course of time they should not grow into a nation."[2] Similar debates on national identity existed within India at the linguistic, provincial and religious levels. While some argued that Indian Muslims were one nation, others argued they were not. Some, such as Liaquat Ali Khan (later prime minister of Pakistan) argued that Indian Muslims were not yet a nation, but could be forged into one.[2]

The movement for Muslim self-awakening and identity was started by the Muslim Modernist and reformer Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817–1898). Poet Philosopher Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877–1938), (the poet of East), provided the philosophical explanation and Barrister Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1871–1948) translated it into the political reality of a nation state. Allama Iqbal's presidential address to the Muslim League on December 29, 1930 is seen as the first introduction of the two-nation theory in support of what would ultimately become Pakistan. The scholar Al-Biruni (973-1048) had observed, at the beginning of the eleventh century, that Hindus and Muslims differed in all matters and habits. On March 22, 1940, Jinnah made a speech in Lahore which was very similar to Al-Biruni's thesis in theme and tone. Jinnah stated that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different religious philosophies, with different social customs and literature, with no intermarriage and based on conflicting ideas and concepts. Their outlook on life and of life was different and despite 1,000 years of history, the relations between the Hindus and Muslims could not attain the level of cordiality. The All-India Muslim League, in attempting to represent Indian Muslims, felt that the Muslims of the subcontinent were a distinct and separate nation from the Hindus. At first they demanded separate electorates, but when they came to the conclusion that Muslims would not be safe[by whom?] in a Hindu-dominated India, they began to demand a separate state. The League demanded self-determination for Muslim-majority areas in the form of a sovereign state promising minorities equal rights and safeguards in these Muslim majority areas.

The Two-Nation Theory asserted that India was not a nation. It also asserted that Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims were each a nation, despite great variations in language, culture and ethnicity within each of those groups.[18] To counter critics who said that a community of radically varying ethnicities and languages who were territorially intertwined with other communities could not be a nation, the theory said that the concept of nation in the East was different from that in the West. In the East, religion was "a complete social order which affects all the activites in life" and "where the allegiance of people is divided on the basis of religion, the idea of territorial nationalism has never succeeded."[19][20] It asserted that "a Muslim of one country has far more sympathies with a Muslim living in another country than with a non-Muslim living in the same country."[19] Therefore, "the conception of Indian Muslims as a nation may not be ethnically correct, but socially it is correct."[20] Iqbal had also championed the notion of pan-Islamic nationhood (see: Ummah) and attacked the concept of a territory-centered nation as anti-Islamic: "In taza khudaon mein bara sabse watan hai; Jo pairahan iska hai, voh mazhab ka kafan hai (Of all the new false gods, the biggest is the Motherland (watan); The garment of this idea is actually the death-shroud of religion)."[21] He had stated the dissolution of ethnic nationalities into a unified Muslim society (or millat) as the ultimate goal: Butaan-e-rang-o-khoon ko tor kar millat mein gum ho ja; Na Turani rahe baqi, na Irani, na Afghani (Destroy the idols of color and blood-ties, and merge into the Muslim society; Let no Turanians remain, no Iranians, no Afghans).[22]

[edit] Two Nation Theory in the post-partition period

After Independence and Partition, the Two Nation Theory has faced criticism within Pakistan on several grounds. Muslims did not entirely separate from Hindus and about one-third of all Indian Muslims continued to live in post-partition India as Indian citizens alongside a much larger Hindu majority.[23] The subsequent partition of Pakistan itself into the present-day nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh was cited as proof both that Muslims did not constitute one nation and that religion could not be used a defining factor for nationhood.[23][24][25] Several ethnic and provincial leaders in Pakistan also began to use the term "nation" to describe their provinces and argued that their very existence was threatened by the concept of amalgamation into a Pakistani nation on the basis that Muslims were one nation.[26][27] It has also been alleged that the idea that Islam is the basis of nationhood embroils Pakistan too deeply in the affairs of other predominantly Muslim states and regions, prevents the emergence of a unique sense of Pakistani nationhood that is independent of reference to India, and encourages the growth of a fundamentalist culture in the country.[28][29][30] Also, because Partition divided Indian Muslims into three groups (of roughly 150 million people each in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) instead of forming a single community inside a United India that would have numbered about 450 million people in 2010 and potentially exercised great influence over the entire subcontinent, the Two Nation Theory is sometimes alleged to have ultimately weakened the position of Muslims in the subcontinent and resulted in large-scale territorial shrinkage for cultural aspects that became associated with Muslims (e.g. the Urdu language).[31][32]

This criticism has received a mixed response from Pakistani commentators. Some have contended that Two Nations did not necessarily imply two states, and the fact that Bangladesh did not merge into India after separating from Pakistan supports the Two Nation Theory.[33] Others have stated the theory is still valid despite the still-extant Muslim minority in India, and asserted variously that Indian Muslims have been "Hinduised" (i.e. lost much of their Islamic identity due to assimilation into Hindu culture), or that they are treated as an excluded or alien group by an allegedly Hindu-dominated India.[34] The emergence of a sense of identity that is pan-Islamic rather than Pakistani has been defended as consistent with the founding ideology of Pakistan and the concept that "Islam itself is a nationality," while the commonly-held notion of "nationality, to Muslims, is like idol worship."[35][36] While some have emphasized that promoting the primacy of a pan-Islamic identity (over all other identities) is essential to maintaining a distinctiveness from India and preventing national "collapse", others have argued that the Two Nation Theory has served its purpose in "midwifing" Pakistan into existence and should now be discarded to allow Pakistan to emerge as a normal nation-state.[29][37]

In post-Independence India, the Two Nation Theory has helped advance the cause of groups seeking to identify a "Hindu national culture" as the core identification of an Indian. This allows the acknowledgment of the common ethnicity of Hindus and Muslims while requiring that all adopt a Hindu identity in order to be truly Indian. From the Hindu nationalist perspective, this concedes the ethnic reality that Indian Muslims are "flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood" but still presses for an officially-recognized equation of national and religious identity, i.e. that "an Indian is a Hindu."[38] The theory has provided ideological inspiration to the allegation that Indian Muslims "cannot be loyal citizens of India" or any other non-Muslim nation, and are "always capable and ready to perform traitorous acts".[39][40] Constitutionally, India rejects the two nation theory and regards Indian Muslims as equal citizens.[41] From the official Indian perspective, Partition is regarded as a tactical necessity to rid the subcontinent of British rule rather than denoting acceptance of the theory.[41][42]

[edit] Support

In his book Pakistan or The Partition of India, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar has written a sub-chapter titled If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted. He writes that if the Muslims are bent on the creation of Pakistan, then it must be conceded to them. He asks whether Muslims in the army could be trusted to defend India. In the event of Muslims invading India or in the case of a Muslim rebellion, "[W]hom would the Indian Muslims in the army side with?," he questions. He concludes that in the interests of the safety of India, Pakistan should be acceded to, should the Muslims demand it. According to him the Hindu assumption that though Hindus and Muslims were two nations they could live under one state, was but a empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree.[43]

Others too state that The Two-Nation Theory is relevant to this day citing factors such as lower literacy and education levels amongst Indian Muslims as compared to Indian Hindus, long-standing cultural differences, and outbreaks of religious violence such as those occurring during the 2002 Gujarat Riots in India, however it is added that even after 60 years of independence, Pakistan has not confirmed to being a One-Nation in that is shows disunity.[3].

[edit] Criticism

Map of British Indian Empire, 1909, showing percentage of Hindus in different districts.

Some historians have claimed that the theory was a creation of a few Muslim intellectuals.[44] Prominent Pakistani politician Altaf Hussain of Muttahida Qaumi Movement believes history has proved the two-nation theory wrong.[45] A newspaper report quotes him saying "The two-nation theory died with the break-up of the country in 1971" (referring to the secession of East Pakistan as Bangladesh in that year).[46]

According to others the vision of the two-nation theory is beset with problems. Pakistan was to be a home to the Muslims of South Asia. Before partition, in a population of 400 million, 100 million were Muslims. When partition took place, a third of the Muslims were in West Pakistan, a third in East Pakistan, and a third remained behind in India. After the secession of East Pakistan, in 1971, only a third of the Muslims of South Asia resided in the "new" Pakistan, making it difficult for Pakistani leaders to defend the two-nation theory. Pakistan's vision is found unjustifiable because there are as many Muslims in India and in Bangladesh as there are in Pakistan, and that though Bangladesh continues to exist as a separate state from India, it does not change the reality that the majority of the Muslims of South Asia now reside outside of Pakistan. Altaf Hussain states;

“ The idea of Pakistan was dead at its inception, when the majority of Muslims chose to stay back after partition, a truism reiterated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.[47] ”

Other critics of the theory point to the fact that after partition, a significant minority, almost a third of the Muslims, remained in the Hindu-majority India, whilst almost all the Hindus and Sikhs chose to leave the Muslim-majority Pakistan and migrate to India during the violence that accompanied partition[48], leaving Pakistan (after the separation of Bangladesh) today with a Hindu population of 1.5%.[49]

[edit] Creation of Bangladesh

Critics, some in Pakistan, also point to the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, as an example that a homogeneous Muslim majority may not always guarantee unity or security and that this concept was buried in the secession of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh.[50] Irfan Husain, in his editorial in the Dawn observes that it has now become an “impossible and exceedingly boring task of defending a defunct theory”,[51] a counter point is that the theory would have been considered disproved only if East Pakistan had reunited with India.[52]

[edit] Savarkar and Pakistan or the partition of India

Savarkar in the 1920s-1930s.

The Hindu Maha Sabha under the presidentship of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, presented a stand of complete opposition to the formation of Pakistan. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar summaries Savarkar's position, in his Pakistan or The Partition of India as follows,

“ Mr. Savarkar... insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution;... In the struggle for political power between the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims, such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population.[43] ”

[edit] Statements and sayings

In Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League Presidential Address delivered at Lahore, on March 22–23, 1940, he explained:

Jinnah delivering a political speech.
“ It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. ”
Muhammad Iqbal

Allama Iqbal's statement explaining the attitude of Muslim delegates to the Round-Table Conference issued in December, 1933 was a rejoinder to Jawahar Lal Nehru's statement. Nehru had said that the attitude of the Muslim delegation was based on “reactionarism”. Iqbal concluded his rejoinder with:

“ In conclusion I must put a straight question to pundit Jawahar Lal, how is India's problem to be solved if the majority community will neither concede the minimum safeguards necessary for the protection of a minority of 80 million people, nor accept the award of a third party; but continue to talk of a kind of nationalism which works out only to its own benefit? This position can admit of only two alternatives. Either the Indian majority community will have to accept for itself the permanent position of an agent of British imperialism in the East, or the country will have to be redistributed on a basis of religious, historical and cultural affinities so as to do away with the question of electorates and the communal problem in its present form. ”

[edit] References

  1. ^ Robin W. Winks, Alaine M. Low (2001), The Oxford history of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199246809, http://books.google.com/books?id=IRB52ijcgMMC, "... At the heart of the two-nation theory was the belief that the Indian Muslims' identity was defined by religion rather than language or ethnicity ..." 
  2. ^ a b c d Liaquat Ali Khan (1940), Pakistan: The Heart of Asia, Thacker & Co. Ltd., http://books.google.com/books?id=swIYjzJOx5wC, "... There is much in the Musalmans which, if they wish, can roll them into a nation. But isn't there enough that is common to both Hindus and Muslims, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people? Nobody can deny that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and Muslmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized ..." 
  3. ^ a b "Two-Nation Theory Exists". Pakistan Times. http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/04/03/oped2.htm. 
  4. ^ Carlo Caldarola (1982), Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East, Walter de Gruyter, ISBN 9789027932594, http://books.google.com/books?id=R1ME01zxL98C, "... Hindu and Muslim cultures constitute two distinct, and frequently antagonistic, ways of life, and that therefore they cannot coexist in one nation ..." 
  5. ^ S. Harman (1977), Plight of Muslims in India, DL Publications, ISBN 9780950281827, http://books.google.com/books?id=0x1uAAAAMAAJ, "... strongly and repeatedly pressed for the transfer of population between India and Pakistan. Since Hindus and Muslims, according to the protagonists of the two nation theory, could not live together it was proposed by them, at the time of partition of India, that the entire Hindu population should migrate to India and all Muslims should move over to Pakistan, leaving no Hindus in Pakistan and no Muslims in India ..." 
  6. ^ M. M. Sankhdher (1992), Secularism in India, dilemmas and challenges, Deep & Deep Publication, http://books.google.com/books?id=h8wfAAAAIAAJ, "... The partition of the country, based on the two nation theory, was not carried out to its logical conclusion, ie, complete transfer of population ..." 
  7. ^ Economic and political weekly, Volume 14, Part 3, Sameeksha Trust, 1979, http://books.google.com/books?id=dN4nAAAAMAAJ, "... the Muslims are not Indians but foreigners or temporary guests - without any loyalty to the country or its cultural heritage - and should be driven out of the country ..." 
  8. ^ M. M. Sankhdher, K. K. Wadhwa (1991), National unity and religious minorities, Gitanjali Publishing House, ISBN 9788185060361, http://books.google.com/books?id=bwGKAAAAMAAJ, "... In their heart of hearts, the Indian Muslims are not Indian citizens, are not Indians: they are citizens of the universal Islamic Ummah, of Islamdom ..." 
  9. ^ Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Sudhakar Raje (1989), Savarkar commemoration volume, Savarkar Darshan Pratishthan, http://books.google.com/books?id=ByFuAAAAMAAJ, "... His historic warning against conversion and call for Shuddhi was condensed in the dictum 'Dharmantar is Rashtrantar' (to change one's religion is to change one's nationality) ..." 
  10. ^ N. Chakravarty (1990), "Mainstream", Mainstream, Volume 28, Issues 32-52, http://books.google.com/books?id=DDLQAAAAMAAJ, "... 'Dharmantar is Rashtrantar' is one of the old slogans of the VHP ..." 
  11. ^ Rafiq Zakaria (2004), Indian Muslims: where have they gone wrong?, Popular Prakashan, ISBN 9788179912010, http://books.google.com/books?id=-aMlKSmWRQ8cC, "... As a Muslim ... Hindus and Muslims are one nation and not two ... two nations has no basis in history ... they shall continue to live together for another thousand years in united India ..." 
  12. ^ Pakistan Constituent Assembly (1953), Debates: Official report, Volume 1; Volume 16, Government of Pakistan Press, http://books.google.com/books?id=-AmIKAAAAIAAJ, "... say that Hindus and Muslims are one, single nation. It is a very peculiar attitude on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. In fact if his point of view was accepted, then the very justification for the existence of Pakistan would disappear ..." 
  13. ^ Janmahmad (1989), Essays on Baloch national struggle in Pakistan: emergence, dimensions, repercussions, Gosha-e-Adab, http://books.google.com/books?id=mRErAAAAMAAJ, "... would be completely extinct as a people without any identity. This proposition is the crux of the matter, shaping the Baloch attitude towards Pakistani politics. For Baloch to accept the British-conceived two-nation theory for the Indian Muslims ... would mean losing their Baloch identity in the process ..." 
  14. ^ Stephen P. Cohen (2004), The idea of Pakistan, Brookings Institution Press, ISBN 9780815715023, http://books.google.com/books?id=-78yjVybQfkC, "... and the two-nation theory became a trap for Sindhis — instead of liberating Sindh, it fell under Punjabi-Mohajir domination, and until his death in 1995 he called for a separate Sindhi "nation," implying a separate Sindhi country ..." 
  15. ^ Ahmad Salim (1991), Pashtun and Baloch history: Punjabi view, Fiction House, http://books.google.com/books?id=-yvxtAAAAMAAJ, "... Attacking the 'two nation theory' in Lower House on December 14, 1947, Ghaus Bux Bizenjo said: "We have a distinct culture like Afghanistan and Iran, and if the mere fact that we are Muslim requires us to amalgamate with Pakistan, then Afghanistan and Iran should also be amalgamated with Pakistan ..." 
  16. ^ Hyndman, Henry (1907). "Ruin of India by British Rule". Hyndman: Report on India of the “Social Democratic Federation” (Great Britain), Stuttgart (1907). http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1907/ruin-india.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-10. 
  17. ^ Abbott Lawrence Lowell (1918), Greater European governments, Harvard University Press, http://books.google.com/books?id=H9gMAAAAYAAJ, "... The people of India are not a nation, but a conglomerate of many different races and religions ... enabled the British to conquer and hold the country. If the inhabitants should act together, and were agreed in wanting independence, they could get it. In short, if they were capable of national self-government, the English would live on a volcano ..." 
  18. ^ Rubina Saigol (1995), Knowledge and identity: articulation of gender in educational discourse in Pakistan, ASR Publications, ISBN 9789698217303, http://books.google.com/books?id=d82eAAAAMAAJ, "... the idea that all Muslims are one single nation vis a vis the Hindus, who were also described in monolithic terms, erased the vast regional differences between and among Muslims themselves. These difference, of course, came into sharp focus when the province of East Pakistan became a separate country in 1971 ... stresses that Jinnah hated the idea of provincial diversity ... deep desire to create one Pakistan and quotes Jinnah as having said that We are Muslims. We believe in one God, one prophet and one book. It is essential that we should be one nation ..." 
  19. ^ a b Mahomed Ali Jinnah (1940 (republished 1992)), Problem of India's future constitution, and allied articles, Minerva Book Shop, Anarkali, Lahore, ISBN 9789690101228, http://books.google.com/books?id=pENuAAAAMAAJ, "... understood in the West, by a Hindu or a Muslim, but a complete social order which affects all the activites in life. In Islam, religion is the motive spring of all actions in life. A Muslim of one country has far more sympathies with a Muslim living in another country than with a non-Muslim living in the same country ..." 
  20. ^ a b Shaukatullah Ansari (1944), Pakistan - The Problem of India, Minerva Book Shop, Anarkali, Lahore, http://books.google.com/books?id=KFElguoJyEsC, "... In the East, religion is considered not merely religion ... a complete social order which affects all the activites in life ... In countries where the allegiance of people is divided on the basis of religion, the idea of territorial nationalism has never succeeded ... the conception of Indian Muslims as a nation may not be ethnically correct, but socially it is correct ..." 
  21. ^ Nasim A. Jawed (1999), Islam's political culture: religion and politics in predivided Pakistan, University of Texas Press, ISBN 9780292740808, http://books.google.com/books?id=W9tHT4uwYpIC, "... his consciousness of these conflicts that made Muhammad Iqbal, the eminent poet-philosopher (d. 1938) declare: 'In taza khudaon men bara sab se watan hay; Jo payrahan is ka hay voh madhhab ka kafan hay" ... For the great bulk of the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent who, before 1947, supported the creation of Pakistan, the demand for Pakistan resulted from their awareness of the differences between the two types of communities - based on faith and country - and from their preference of the former over the latter ..." 
  22. ^ Dr. Sajid Khakwani (2010-05-29), ø§ù…ہ یø§ ø±ÛŒø§ø³øªøŸ (Ummah or Statehood?), News Urdu, http://newsurdu.net/article/2010/05/29/column-340/, retrieved 2010-07-09, "... یہی ù…ù‚øµùˆø¯ ùø·ø±øª ہے یہی ø±ù…ø² ù…ø³ù„ù…ø§ù†ÛŒ ø§ø®ùˆøª ú©ÛŒ ø¬Ûø§ù†ú¯ÛŒø±ÛŒ ù…ø­ø¨øª ú©ÛŒ ùø±ø§ùˆø§ù†ÛŒ , ø¨øªø§ù† ø±ù†ú¯ ùˆ ø®ùˆúº ú©ùˆ øªùˆú‘ ú©ø± ù…ù„øª ù…ÛŒúº ú¯ù… ہùˆ ø¬ø§ ù†Û øªùˆø±ø§ù†ÛŒ ø±ÛÛ’ ø¨ø§ù‚ÛŒ ù†Û ø§ÛŒø±ø§ù†ÛŒ ù†Û ø§ùøºø§ù†ÛŒ (Yehi maqsood-e-fitrat hai, yehi ramz-e-Musalmani, Akhuwat ki jahangiri, muhabbat ki farawani; Butaan-e-rang-o-khoon ko tor kar millat mein gum ho ja; Na Turani rahe baqi, na Irani, na Afghani ..." 
  23. ^ a b Husain Haqqani (2005), Pakistan: between mosque and military, Carnegie Endowment, ISBN 9780870032141, http://books.google.com/books?id=nYppZ_dEjdIC, "... Although Pakistan was intended to save South Asia's Muslims from being a permanent minority, it never became the homeland of all South Asia's Muslims. One-third ... remained behind as a minority in Hindu-dominated India ... the other two-thirds now lives in two separate countries, confirming the doubts expressed before independence about the practicality of the two-nation theory ..." 
  24. ^ Craig Baxter (1994), Islam, continuity and change in the modern world, Syracuse University Press, ISBN 9780815626398, http://books.google.com/books?id=WtsqZZJ1tToC, "...Ultimately, the repudiation of the two-nation theory, with its corollary that Pakistan is a single nation, became the basis for Bengali rather than Pakistani or Islamic nationalism ... Bangladesh meant that Islam had been the basis for the creation of Pakistan but it could not provide a sufficient basis for long-term national unity ..." 
  25. ^ Craig Baxter (1998), Bangladesh: From a Nation to a State, Carnegie Endowment, ISBN 9780813336329, http://books.google.com/books?id=GIqp4SoKik0C, "...India was divided on the basis of the Two Nation Theory ... the theory was violated. The first time was at independence, when so many Muslims remained in India ... the subcontinent underwent the outcome of what could be described as a second Two Nation Theory, a division based on culture, language and social organization rather than religion ... into residual Pakistan and Bangladesh ..." 
  26. ^ Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad, Pakistan (2005), Pakistan political perspective, Volume 14, http://books.google.com/books?id=1uGNAAAAMAAJ, "... Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement (PONM, a grouping of nationalist parties from Balochistan, NWFP and Sindh) ..." 
  27. ^ Sayid Ghulam Mustafa, Ali Ahmed Qureshi (2003), Sayyed: as we knew him, Manchhar Publications, http://books.google.com/books?id=rfdtAAAAMAAJ, "... Sindhi nation, its culture, language and literature cannot co-exist with the above colouring or moud of teachings. If Pakistani Muslims are to be taken as one nation, then their cultures, language and literature have to be leveled ..." 
  28. ^ Paul R. Brass, Achin Vanaik, Asgharali Engineer (2002), Competing nationalisms in South Asia: essays for Asghar Ali Engineer, Orient Blackswan, ISBN 9788125022213, http://books.google.com/books?id=7qJG7GapE_IC, "... Mubarak Ali's assessment remains valid ... It has to establish a positive foundation for Pakistani nationalism capable of coping with the trauma of its bifurcation in 1971. Neither the two-nation theory nor an Islamicized version of a 'Pakistan ideology' holds the answer. Instead, Ali would place his hopes in a territorially- rather than religiously-founded version of Pakistani nationalism ..." 
  29. ^ a b Shahid Javed Burki (1999), Pakistan: fifty years of nationhood, Westview Press, ISBN 9780813336213, http://books.google.com/books?id=T0qwWSbboAAC, "... If Pakistan was be created for Islam, it must fully follow its dictates ... General Zia ul-Haq ... 'Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state,' the general said ... 'Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse. For the past four years we have been trying to bring in Islamic values to the country' ... a system of Islamic courts ... new set of shariat laws ... an amir (ruler) and a shura (an assembly not necessarily chosen by the people) ..." 
  30. ^ Moonis Ahmar (2001), The CTBT debate in Pakistan, Har-Anand Publications, ISBN 9788124108185, http://books.google.com/books?id=cO52DJYhF14C, "... The off-shoot of these fundamentalist groups can be seen in Pakistan, emphasizing on one point that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and Islamic ideology must be implemented in social, economic and political sphere of the state ..." 
  31. ^ Ghulam Kibria (2009), A shattered dream: understanding Pakistan's underdevelopment, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195779479, http://books.google.com/books?id=CNDsAAAAMAAJ, "... It will be clear to the future generations that the Indian Muslim League leadership lacked vision and the competence ... will realize that while the Muslims were fragmented into three nations, the Hindus remained one single nation ..." 
  32. ^ Gurpreet Mahajan (2002), The multicultural path: issues of diversity and discrimination in democracy, Sage, ISBN 9780761995791, http://books.google.com/books?id=wanZAAAAMAAJ, "... the presence of minority educational institutions etablished for Urdu-speaking population in areas where Urdu is a spoken language, has not helped to check the decreasing interest in Urdu (Shahabuddin, 2000:2). Indeed, the decline of Urdu language users has been a matter of some concern among members of the Muslim community. Many of them feel that the loss of language users will adversely affect the survival of the culture and literature ..." 
  33. ^ Raja Afsar Khan (2005), The concept, Volume 25, http://books.google.com/books?id=A-NtAAAAMAAJ, "... The important point is that Bangladesh did not merge with Indian Bengal even though both shared the same language and several other cultural traits ... Did not Bangladesh reconfirm that way the two nation theory ..." 
  34. ^ Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, John L. Esposito (2000), Muslims on the Americanization path?, Oxford University Press US, ISBN 9780195135268, http://books.google.com/books?id=SrV5dI0Z3koC, "... Pakistani Muslims are suspicious of Indian Muslims because they disagree with their agenda on Kashmir. For them Pakistani nationalism is Islamic, but Indian nationalism is definitely not. Pakistanis assume that Indian Muslims have been assimilated into Hindu culture ..." 
  35. ^ Tarik Jan (1993), Foreign policy debate, the years ahead, Institute of Policy Studies, http://books.google.com/books?id=--1tAAAAMAAJ, "... Today, if we have this intense longing for pan- Islamism, if we entertain those notions of establishing a universal Islamic State, it is only because the essence of our nation is Islam, because it is committed historically and constitutionally to the Islamic aspirations of ..." 
  36. ^ S. M. Burke (1974), Mainsprings of Indian and Pakistani foreign policies, University of Minnesota Pres, ISBN 9780816607204, http://books.google.com/books?id=m8QCmx0u7FUC, "... Iqbal, therefore, perceived ... Nationalism, as generally practiced, was nothing short of 'a subtle form of idolatory' ... Pakistanis have continued enthusiastically to follow the trail ... 'nationality to Muslims is like idol worship' ... Islam itself is a nationality ..." 
  37. ^ Anwar Hussain Syed (1974), China & Pakistan: diplomacy of an entente cordiale, University of Massachusetts Press, ISBN 9780870231605, http://books.google.com/books?id=v-eJOu2ZUkkC, "... In some ways, the two-nation theory has become a millstone around the Pakistani nation's neck. ... after the separation was achieved and Pakistan established, its work done, this ideological midwife should have been discharged ... it lacked the capacity to lead the infant nation toward adulthood and maturity ..." 
  38. ^ Leo Suryadinata (2000), Nationalism and globalization: east and west, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, ISBN 9789812300782, http://books.google.com/books?id=eEcHhROO_qUC, "... The term Hindutva equates religious and national identity: an Indian is a Hindu ... 'the Indian Muslims are not aliens ethnically. They are flesh of our flesh and blood of our blood' ..." 
  39. ^ Yogindar Sikand, Muslims in India: contemporary social and political discourses, Hope India Publications, 2006, ISBN 817871115X, 9788178711157, http://books.google.com/books?id=AqII1zqXt-4C, "... the claim that Muslims are necessarily disloyal to India ... often articulated in the context of discussions about the Partition of India ... the Hindutva argument that Muslims cannot be loyal citizens of India because of their adherence to Islam ..." 
  40. ^ Clarence Maloney, Peoples of South Asia, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974, ISBN 0030849691, 9780030849695, http://books.google.com/books?id=cOptAAAAMAAJ, "... the Muslim can never be a real citizen of India because he is loyal first to his religion and only secondarily to his country. The Muslim, they feel, is always capable and ready to perform traitorous acts if they will ..." 
  41. ^ a b Jasjit Singh, Kargil 1999: Pakistan's fourth war for Kashmir, Knowledge World, 1999, ISBN 8186019227, 9788186019221, http://books.google.com/books?id=XBFuAAAAMAAJ, "... India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state, but rejects the two-nation ideology that drives it ..." 
  42. ^ Lawrence Kaelter Rosinger, The state of Asia: a contemporary survey, Ayer Publishing, 1971, ISBN 0836920694, 9780836920697, http://books.google.com/books?id=xIRt6qxO704C, "... The Congress welcomed the creation of a politically independent India, and accepted partition as a necessary evil in achieving this main goal ..." 
  43. ^ a b Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1945). Pakistan or the Partition of India. Mumbai: Thackers. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/307a.html#part_2. 
  44. ^ India and Pakistan in the Shadow of Afghanistan, Amaury de Riencourt, Foreign Affairs, Winter 1982/83
  46. ^ Staff report (2004-11-02). "Two-nation theory died with Pakistan’s break-up, says Altaf". Daily Times (Pakistan). http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-11-2004_pg7_53. Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  47. ^ Faruqui, Ahmad (2005-03-19). "Jinnah's unfulfilled vision: The Idea of Pakistan by Stephen Cohen". Asia Times (Pakistan). http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC19Df04.html. Retrieved 2009-10-06. 
  48. ^ Sixty bitter years after Partition - BBC News
  49. ^ The Largest Hindu Communities
  50. ^ Two Nation Theory
  51. ^ A discourse of the deaf, by Irfan Husain, November 4, 2000 Dawn
  52. ^ "India and Partition". Daily Times. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-4-2004_pg3_5. 
  53. ^ Official website, Nazaria-e-Pakistan Foundation. "Excerpt from the Presidential Address delivered by the Quaid-i-Azam Lahore on March 22–23, 1940". http://www.nazariapak.info/data/quaid/statements/two-nation.asp. Retrieved 2006-04-22. 
  54. ^ Official website, Iqbal Academy, Lahore. "Iqbal and the Pakistan Movement". http://www.allamaiqbal.com/person/movement/move_main.htm. Retrieved 2006-04-22. 

[edit] External links

Related Articles & Resources

Sources Subject Index - Experts, Sources, Spokespersons

Sources Select Resources Articles

This article is based on one or more articles in Wikipedia, with modifications and additional content by SOURCES editors. This article is covered by a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). The remainder of the content of this website, except where otherwise indicated, is copyright SOURCES and may not be reproduced without written permission. (For information call 416-964-7799 or use the Contact form.)

SOURCES.COM is an online portal and directory for journalists, news media, researchers and anyone seeking experts, spokespersons, and reliable information resources. Use SOURCES.COM to find experts, media contacts, news releases, background information, scientists, officials, speakers, newsmakers, spokespeople, talk show guests, story ideas, research studies, databases, universities, associations and NGOs, businesses, government spokespeople. Indexing and search applications by Ulli Diemer and Chris DeFreitas.

For information about being included in SOURCES as a expert or spokesperson see the FAQ or use the online membership form. Check here for information about becoming an affiliate. For partnerships, content and applications, and domain name opportunities contact us.

Sources home page