Two-nation theory
Two-nation theory

The significance and reality of Pakistan has not been fully understood in the west. To the west, nationality based on religion is an alien and often-incomprehensible phenomenon. This is because religion in the West has come to play such a restricted role. In the West, Germans and French are accepted as two separate nations. However, the fact of Hindus and Muslims in India representing two separate cultural entities is seldom appreciated. A young French student may visit a family in Germany, share their meals, may attend the same church and even marry a girl in the family without creating a scandal or surprise. But such instances of intermarriage have been extremely rare in the Indo-Pak Sub-Continent. Even some of the most ardent Indian Nationalist has found the idea totally unacceptable. As Sir Abdur Rahim observed:[1]The significance – and reality Any of us Indian Muslims traveling for instances in Afghanistan, Persia and Central Asia among Chinese Muslims, Arabs and Turks, would at once be made at home and would not find anything to which we are not accustomed. On the contrary, in India we find ourselves in all social matters total aliens when we cross the street and enter that part of the town where our Hindu fellow townsmen live.

Two-nation theory Two-nation theory Two-nation theory Two-nation theory Two-nation theory


Two-nation theory

Why Ideology of Pakistan is Important

Two-nation theory

Today the world community comprises of more than 180 countries. Pakistan appeared on the world map in August 1947, and became the first Islamic ideological state of the modern times. Unlike the non-ideological states, it was not established due to any geographical conflict or territorial domination by a group of people. If the ideology of such a state like Pakistan is dead then its existence can be questioned. Therefore, Pakistan cant exist if there is no more ideology of Pakistan.Pakistan is an ideological state established in the name of the Islam. But on the 31st of December 1971, this land of ours, lost its east wing. And East Pakistan emerged on the world map as Bangladesh. The then prime minister of India Ms. Indra Gandhi claimed that the birth of Bangladesh is the death of the two-nation theory If, as said, the ideology of Pakistan came to an end in 1971, then the objective behind the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan would have come to an end too.[2] Pakistan – ideological state

Purpose of Pakistan

The breakup of the country in 1971 raised cynical eyebrows about national identity and gave rise to the theory of sub-nationalities on the basis of race, religion and language. Thus questions are being asked about the very existence of Pakistan. The debate about the motivating force behind the making of Pakistan has been one endless exercise. Was there any need of Pakistan at all? Is this just another Muslim state like many others? Was creation of Pakistan a conspiracy of the British and/or of Muslim League? Was it to retrieve the ancient glory of the Islamic era, or to find a base for the reconstruction of Islamic thought and the resurgence and re-adaptation of its message to our day and age? Was Pakistan created accidentally? Was the sacrifice of thousands of Muslims in 1947 useless? Should Pakistan and India be merged together to form Akhand Bharat to restore peace in the Sub-continent?

What is Two Nation Theory

Two-Nation theory is the basis of creation of Pakistan. It states that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations from every definition; therefore Muslims should have a separate homeland in the Muslim majority areas of India, where they can spend their lives according to the glorious teachings of Islam. If Muslims of the sub-continent comprise an Islamic nation then they have the right to have separate homeland as Muhammad Ali Jinnah, (in his address to the annual session of Muslim League) mentioned and I quote:History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, of Czechoslovakia and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many seven or eight sovereign states. Like-wise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula.[3] It states – Muslims  Hindus

History of Two Nation Theory

Mahatma Gandhi, speaking in the second session of the Round table conference in London in 1931, said that the quarrel between Hindus and Muslims was coreview with the British advent in India. It would be difficult to maintain such a position historically because the conflict between Hindus and Muslims had started long before the emergence of the British power in India. The phenomenon of Two-Nation theory originated with the advent of Islam in the Sub-Continent (712AD). According to Jinnah, The concept of two nation theory originated the day, the first Hindu converted to Muslim. The partition of India was proposed more than seven hundred years prior to the Lahore resolution. In 1192 AD, on the eve of battle of Tarian, according to famous historian Farishta, Sultan Muizz-ud-Din had suggested to his rival, Pirthviraj, the partition of India, leaving the region of Sirhind, Punjab and Multan with Sultan and retaining the rest of India for himself. This proposal cropped up again after 150 years, when Al-Beruni pointed out the existence of the two big groups of people subscribing to two different religions. This (the religious difference) renders any connection with them says Beruni, quite impossible and constitutes the widest of gulf between them and us (Hindu and Muslims).[4] Perhaps Emperor – Aurengzeb

Perhaps Emperor Aurengzeb (1658-1707) was responsible for increasing Hindu Muslim tensions by trying to Islamize the Mughal government. Several Muslim historians have actually glorified Aurengzeb for making Muslims conscious of their separate religious and ideological identity. It is also true that Maratha and Sikh leaders raised their banner of revolt against Aurangzeb because in trying to organize his government on Islamic lines, the emperor was acting against their interest. Sir Jaduanath Sarkar observation on the role of Shivaji, the Maratha leader, is revealing: Shivaji has shown that the tree of Hinduism is not really dead. That it can rise from beneath the seemingly crushing load of centuries of political bondage, exclusion from the administration, and legal repression; it can put forth new leaves and branches it can again lift its head up to the skies. After Aurangzeb death, Muslim power started disintegrating. Muslims were so alarmed by the growing power of the Hindus under Maratha leadership that even a Sufi scholar like Shah Walliullha (1703-81) was moved into writing a letter to the Afghan King Shah Walliullah. He wrote: In short, the Muslim community is in a pitiable condition. All control of the machinery of government is in the hands of Hindus, because they are the only people who are capable and industrious. Wealth and prosperity are concentrated in their hands; while the share of Muslims is nothing but poverty and misery At this time you are the only King who is powerful, far-sighted, and capable of defeating the enemy forces. Certainly it is incumbent upon you to march to India, destroy the Maratha domination and rescue weak and old Muslims from the clutches of Non-Muslims. If, God forbid, domination by infidels continues, Muslims will forget Islam and within a short time become such a nation that there will be nothing left distinguish them from non-Muslims.[5] After Aurangzeb   – death

The Two Nations

Although the Hindus and Muslims had been living together for centuries in the Indian sub-continent, yet there had never been either any signs of merger of the Hindu and Muslims societies, or any serious attempt to develop a working relationship between the two major ethnic groups. The two have always remained as two distinct social systems, two separate and distinct cultures and last but not the least, two different civilizations. In fact, Hindu fanaticism has always been against those who do not belong to them and against all outsiders, whom they consider maleech or unclean. So they are against having any connection with such people, what to speak of inter-marriage, a Hindu is often forbidden eat or drink or to even shake hand with a Muslim or for that matter with a person belonging to any other faith or religion. In short the Hindu customs and their hatred for Muslims was the main factor against developing a working relationship between the two major societies. Lala Lajpat Rai, a very astute politician and staunch Hindu Mahasabhite, in his letter to Mr. C.R. Das, which was written 12 or 15 years prior to Pakistan Resolution, 
There is one point more which has been troubling me very much of late and one which I want you to think (about) carefully, and that is the question of Hindu Mohammedan unity. I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim history and Muslim law, and I am inclined to think it is neither possible nor practicable. Assuming and admitting the sincerity of Mohammedan leaders in the non-cooperation movement, I think their religion provides an effective bar to anything of that kind And nothing would relieve more than to be convinced that it is so. But if it is right, then it comes to this, that although we can unite against the British, we cannot do so to rule Hindustan on British lines. We cannot do so to rule Hindustan on democratic lines.Muhammad Ali Jinnah, (in his address to the annual session of Muslim League) mentioned:

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 social orders. It is a dream that the Hindu and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits, and is the cause of most of our troubles, and will lead India to destruction, if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interline together and indeed they belong to two different civilizations, which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Musalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have 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 the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.[6] It is extremely –   difficult


Two-nation theory

Allama Iqbal was the first important figure who propounded the idea of separate homeland on the basis of two nation theory.He firmly believed in the separate identity of the Muslims as a nation and suggested that there would be no possibility of peace in the country unless and untill they were recognized as a nation.In the annual session of Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930,he said:
“India is a continent of human beings belonging to different languages and professing different religions…I,therefore,demand the formation of a consolidated Muslim state in the best interests of the Muslims of India and Islam.”[7] THE VIEW – ALLAMA IQBAL


Two-nation theory

The most clear and emphatic exposition is found in Jinnah’s statement and speeches.He expounded the two nation theory in such detail that most Muslims and even some Hindus came to believe in its truth.He declared:
” Muslims are not a minority,They are one nation by every definition of the word nation.By all canons of international law we are a nation.”
Quaid-e-Azam reiterated that Hindus and Muslims could ever evolve a common nationality was on idle dream.They are a totally different nation .They have an unbridgeable gulf between them and they stand miles apart in regards to their ideals,culture and religion.In 1973,he said:
“Hindustan is neither one country,nor its inhabitants one nation.This is Sub Continent which consist of many nations of which the Hindus and Muslims are two major nations.”[8] Quaid-e-Azam  – reiterated


The Two Nation Theory is still alive. Had there been no Two Nation Theory today, the issues like Kargil, nuclear arms race, and tension on the borders would have never risen. The basic conflict between India and Pakistani nation is still the same. Indians believe in nationality based on territory and therefore want to merge Pakistan back into India. While Pakistanis have been fighting for the last 52 years, to safeguard the Land which they got in the name of Islam. The Kashmir issue, if alive even after 52 years, in spite of India utmost effort to crush the lovers of freedom, is crystal clear proof of the reality of the Two Nation Theory.

It should be understood that the creation of Pakistan was not the result of an accident but it had a meaning. The meaning of Pakistan was not to have a separate homeland for the Muslims of Indo-Pakistan to have a better living; it was not to have industries or nuclear capability.

The significance of the creation of the fortress of Islam was to give the Muslims of the Sub-Continent in particular and the Muslims of the world in general an idea of brotherhood. A brotherhood based on irrespective of color or creed. Pakistan wanted to have Unity among the Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia and to create a sense of spiritual vision that could be left and understand beyond this materialistic world in which man is fighting with man. The Muslim brotherhood has disagreements and the world is dominated by imperial powers and destined according to their wishes.[9] significance of the-   creation