Articles Comments

Pak Tea House » Uncategorized » Two Nation Theory and Creation of Bangladesh

Two Nation Theory and Creation of Bangladesh

Raza Habib RajaThis article is not a “defense” or repudiation of the two nation theory (TNT). Rather it tries to critically evaluate the argument that creation of Bangladesh in fact proved that the two nation theory was not valid. Those who claim that the two nation theory has proven to be a failure cite creation of Bangladesh as an example. It is claimed that ethnic nationalism trumped religion and therefore the two nation theory has proven to be a failure. I do not intend to prove that the two nation theory is wrong or right but just evaluate it with reference to creation of Bangladesh.

Frankly speaking I am not a history expert and do not claim any command on minute details of partition and its various narratives. However, as a student of political thought and comparative politics, I have often been fascinated by the two nation theory. Now for someone who calls himself a “Pakistani Indian”, it may appear that I will be a staunch opponent of the “two nation” theory. The way, it is often interpreted is that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations who would have found it impossible to live together and therefore Muslims who were the minority at that time would need a separate politically autonomous state. I do oppose this version and I think that it is highly debatable. If being a Muslim is the criteria of a separate state then why stop at India? Why not also include all the Muslims of the world and merge them into one nation state?

We know such a thing is not possible and is in fact laughable. The two nation theory would start making sense if only we understand the fleeting concept of identity. We are not just Muslims, but are also have ethno linguistic identities which at times may be competing with each other and at times complimenting each other. Everything revolves around a complex phenomenon known as identity and in politics that is often the most important factor in mobilization. Identity itself may be constructed or at times may simply be something you are born with. Moreover, identity may be dormant and can become active. It is when an identity becomes active, political expression follows.

How a particular identity becomes active often depends on the perceived benefits as well as drawbacks associated with it. It also becomes active, if there is a perception that you are being victimized on the basis of that particular identity. Once an identity is activated, it can form various political expressions which range from political mobilization to demand greater rights to outright demand s for a separate nation state. What determines the exact form of political expression depends on many things. For example gender identity can form a political expression but it is not possible ( at least has not happened ever) for women to demand a separate country! Demand for equal pay and improved civil rights are expressed largely through civil society and do not aim to change the geographical and administrative structure of a particular country.

On the other hand ethnic identity can form various political expressions ranging from formation of political parties on ethnic lines to demands for a separate state. Ethnic nationalists can demand a separate state particularly when an ethnicity views that it is possible to secede and the secession will lead to better standard of living and greater rights. The demand for a separate nation state is also hugely dependent on actual geographical dispersion of the population belonging to that ethnicity. If there are geographical concentrations then the demand for secession is more likely compared to a situation where the ethnicity is evenly dispersed all over the country.

Religion like ethnicity is an identity though compared to ethnic identity is less “rigid”. It is generally said that religion is merely set of believes, but at least in political literature, it has always been considered much more than that. In fact, some have gone to the extent of calling religion of birth as a form of ethnic identity. Yes theoretically speaking it could be changed, but religious identity is a powerful identity particularly in circumstances where discrimination or perceived discrimination is conducted on religious lines.

Put simply religion can also be an effective political identity provided certain conditions are there. And like other identities, it can form a political expression of demanding a separate state.

Demand for Pakistan ( whether we consider it as an actual demand or as bargaining ploy by Jinnah) was a consequence of an activated political identity. There were incidences which activated the Muslim identity and Congress is equally responsible for that as much as the Muslim elites.

Like ethnicity, religion can be a politically potent factor leading to possible demands of a nation state. In Pakistan’s case Muslims were also concentrated in two geographical zones (present day Pakistan and Bangladesh). While a substantial number was also dispersed all over the country there is no denying of the fact that areas forming West Pakistan ( Present day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were Muslim majority areas.

It is true that ethnic identity on its own is often a stronger motivating factor though at the time of independence there were no mass movements demanding independence on ethnic lines. In fact if demand for a nation state is only justified on ethnic lines then India itself should have been divided into many parts as there are so many languages spoken there.

Moreover, the term “partition” is misleading because India has rarely been politically a single unit. Throughout its history, there was just a loose geographical continuity which has always enabled this land to be called India. Within this geographical unit, there have been various political configurations. The right question is not whether there should have been a “partition” but rather whether the areas coming under present day Pakistan and Bangladesh should have joined Indian federation ( as visualized by Congress) or not.

So there were in reality various identities emerging out of Indian subcontinent. There was a broader Indian identity, religious identities, and ethnic linguistic identities. In other words there have always been nations within a nation. And then there is a concept of hybrid identity. It is not important for many to be just Muslims but rather they want their religious freedom as well as their ethnic and cultural independence. So I may be Muslim but at the same time I would prefer that my Punjabi cultural freedom is also safeguarded.

When Bengali and Sindhi Muslims voted for Pakistan (after all let’s not forget that these two provinces clearly voted for Pakistan), the idea was not merely preservation of their religious freedom but a combination of both religious as well ethnic/cultural freedoms. Thus when Bengali Muslims (who were also geographically concentrated) voted for creation of Pakistan, it was also for the preservation of their Bengali identity along with religious identity.

The choice was to join Indian federation or join Pakistan. Those who voted for Pakistan joined Pakistan with the view that perhaps their ethnic and cultural freedom would be better safeguarded in Pakistan rather than India.

The reason why Bangladesh came into being is less to do with fallacy of two nation theory but more with how actually West Pakistan treated East Pakistanis. It is not the idea itself but the way Pakistan tried to over centralize and negate Bengali culture and their ethnic identity. Pakistan superimposed Urdu over Bengali and adopted a policy of sustained repression. Bengalis seceded mainly because of the way we treated them. The discrimination activated the Bengali nationalism and led to secession. But once again it was the hybrid identity of both Islam and Bengali ethnicity which dictated the choice of independence rather than merger with India. What had earlier prompted them to opt for Pakistan, once again led them to become an independent state.

The two nation theory would have been discarded IF Bengalis had opted to join India in 1971 rather than opting for going independent.

Personally I think history is yet to give its verdict about the two nation theory. We cannot just say that just because Bangladesh came into being therefore it is wrong.

Written by

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , ,

542 Responses to "Two Nation Theory and Creation of Bangladesh"

  1. shimr choudhary United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Despite gaping holes in the case against Afzal Guru, all India’s institutions played a part in putting a Kashmiri to death

    By Arundhati Roy

    Spring announced itself in Delhi on Saturday. The sun was out, and the law took its course. Just before breakfast, the government of India secretly hanged Afzal Guru, prime accused in the attack on parliament in December 2001, and interred his body in Delhi’s Tihar jail where he had been in solitary confinement for 12 years. Guru’s wife and son were not informed. “The authorities intimated the family through speed post and registered post,” the home secretary told the press, “the director general of the Jammu and Kashmir [J&K] police has been told to check whether they got it or not”. No big deal, they’re only the family of yet another Kashmiri terrorist.

    In a moment of rare unity the Indian nation, or at least its major political parties – Congress, the Bharatiya Janata party and the Communist party of India (Marxist) – came together as one (barring a few squabbles about “delay” and “timing”) to celebrate the triumph of the rule of law. Live broadcasts from TV studios, with their usual cocktail of papal passion and a delicate grip on facts, crowed about the “victory of democracy”. Rightwing Hindu nationalists distributed sweets to celebrate the hanging, and beat up Kashmiris (paying special attention to the girls) who had gathered in Delhi to protest. Even though Guru was dead and gone, the commentators in the studios and the thugs on the streets seemed, like cowards who hunt in packs, to need each other to keep their courage up. Perhaps because, deep inside, themselves they knew they had colluded in doing something terribly wrong.

    What are the facts? On 13 December 2001 five armed men drove through the gates of the Indian parliament in a car fitted out with a bomb. When challenged they jumped out of the car and opened fire, killing eight security personnel and a gardener. In the firefight that followed, all five attackers were killed. In one of the many versions of the confessions he was forced to make in police custody, Guru identified the men as Mohammed, Rana, Raja, Hamza and Haider. That’s all we know about them. They don’t even have second names. LK Advani, then home minister in the BJP government, said they “looked like Pakistanis”. (He should know what Pakistanis look like right? Being a Sindhi himself.) Based only on Guru’s custodial confession (which the supreme court subsequently set aside, citing “lapses” and “violations of procedural safeguards”) the government recalled its ambassador from Pakistan and mobilised half a million soldiers on the Pakistan border. There was talk of nuclear war. Foreign embassies issued travel advisories and evacuated their staff from Delhi. The standoff lasted months and cost India thousands of crores – millions of pounds.

    Within 24 hours, the Delhi Police Special Cell (notorious for its fake “encounter” killings, where suspected terrorists are targeted in extrajudicial attacks) claimed it had cracked the case. On 15 December it arrested the “mastermind”, Professor SAR Geelani, in Delhi, and Showkat Guru and his cousin Afzal Guru in Srinagar, Kashmir. Subsequently, they arrested Afsan Guru, Showkat’s wife. The Indian media enthusiastically disseminated the police version. These were some of the headlines: “Delhi university lecturer was terror plan hub”, “Varsity don guided fidayeen”, “Don lectured on terror in free time.” Zee TV, a national network, broadcast a “docudrama” called December 13, a recreation that claimed to be the “truth based on the police charge sheet”. (If the police version is the truth, why have courts?) The then prime minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and Advani publicly applauded the film. The supreme court refused to postpone the screening, saying that the media would not influence judges. It was broadcast only a few days before the fast-track court sentenced Geelani and Afzal and Showkat Guru to death. Subsequently the high court acquitted Geelani and Afsan Guru. The supreme court upheld the acquittal. But in its 5 August 2005 judgment it gave Afzal Guru three life sentences and a double death sentence.

    The BJP called for an immediate execution. One of its election slogans was “Desh abhi sharminda hai, Afzal abhibhi zinda hai“, which means (in stirring rhyme), “Our nation is ashamed because Afzal is still alive”. In order to blunt the murmurs that had begun to surface, a fresh media campaign began. Chandan Mitra, now a BJP MP, then editor of the Pioneer newspaper, wrote: “Afzal Guru was one of the terrorists who stormed parliament house on 13 December 2001. He was the first to open fire on security personnel, apparently killing three of the six who died.” Even the police charge sheet did not accuse Afzal of that. The supreme court judgment acknowledged the evidence was circumstantial: “As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy.” But then, shockingly, it went on to say: “The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”

    Who crafted our collective conscience on the parliament attack case? Could it have been the facts we gleaned in the papers? The films we saw on TV? Before celebrating the rule of law, let’s take a look at what happened.

    The people who are celebrating the victory of the rule of law argue that the very fact that the Indian courts acquitted Geelani and convicted Afzal proves that the trial was free and fair. Was it?

    The trial in the fast-track court began in May 2002. The world was still convulsed by post 9/11 frenzy. The US government was gloating prematurely over its “victory” in Afghanistan. In the state of Gujarat, the massacre of Muslims by Hindu goon squads, helped along by the police and the state government machinery that had begun in late February, was still going on sporadically. The air was charged with communal hatred. And in the parliament attack case the law was taking its own course. At the most crucial stage of a criminal case, when evidence is presented, when witnesses are cross-examined, when the foundations of the argument are laid – in the high court and supreme court you can only argue points of law, you cannot introduce new evidence – Afzal Guru, locked in a high-security solitary cell, had no lawyer. The court-appointed junior lawyer did not visit his client even once in jail, he did not summon any witnesses in Guru’s defence, and he did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The judge expressed his inability to do anything about the situation.

    Even so, from the word go the case fell apart. A few examples out of many: The two most incriminating pieces of evidence against Guru were a cellphone and a laptop confiscated at the time of arrest. They were not sealed, as evidence is required to be. During the trial it emerged that the hard disk of the laptop had been accessed after the arrest. It only contained the fake home ministry passes and the fake identity cards that the “terrorists” used to access parliament – and a Zee TV video clip of parliament house. So according to the police, Guru had deleted all the information except the most incriminating bits. The police witness said he sold the crucial sim card that connected all the accused in the case to one another to Guru on 4 December 2001. But the prosecution’s own call records showed the sim was actually operational from 6 November 2001.

    How did the police get to Afzal? They said that Geelani led them to him. But the court records show that the message to arrest Afzal went out before they picked up Geelani. The high court called this a “material contradiction” but left it at that.

    The arrest memos were signed by Bismillah, Geelani’s brother, in Delhi. The seizure memos were signed by two men from the J&K police, one of them an old tormentor from Afzal’s past as a surrendered “militant”.

    It goes on and on, this pile up of lies and fabricated evidence. The courts note them, but for their pains the police get no more than a gentle rap on their knuckles. Nothing more.

    Anyone who was really interested in solving the mystery of the parliament attack would have followed the dense trail of evidence on offer. No one did, thereby ensuring the real authors of the conspiracy will remain unidentified and uninvestigated.

    The real story and the tragedy of what happened to Guru is too immense to be contained in a courtroom. The real story would lead us to the Kashmir valley, that potential nuclear flashpoint, and the most densely militarised zone in the world, where half a million Indian soldiers (one to every four civilians) and a maze of army camps and torture chambers that would put Abu Ghraib in the shade are bringing secularism and democracy to the Kashmiri people. Since 1990, when the struggle for self-determination became militant, 68,000 people have died, 10,000 have disappeared, and at least 100,000 have been tortured.

    What sets Guru’s killing apart is that, unlike those tens of thousands who died in prison cells, his life and death were played out in the blinding light of day in which all the institutions of Indian democracy played their part in putting him to death.

    Now he has been hanged, I hope our collective conscience has been satisfied. Or is our cup of blood still only half full?

  2. Asoka India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Shmir: I am innocent!! I didn’t open ANY schools…. please, please let my head be with my body. I swear I didn’t open any school, honest.
    .
    I hope i have ‘awnser’-ed you.

  3. Pankaj India Google Chrome Windows says:

    ALL this discussion on TNT shows HOW BADLY
    PARTITION has MESSED up the MINDS of the 500 MILLION
    MUSLIMS of South Asia
    .
    500 MILLION MUSLIMS in SOUTH Asia but of NO USE to the
    UMMAH because they HAVE BEEN DIVIDED into three PARTS
    by this stupid TNT

  4. Pankaj India Google Chrome Windows says:

    If 500 MILLION Muslims would have been Present in a UNITED INDIA
    IT would have been a DE FACTO ISLAMIC STATE
    .
    The CALIPHATE WOULD HAVE BEEN A REALITY
    From Middle East to BURMA
    .
    SO Jinnah did NOT JUST destroy South Asian Muslims
    .
    JINNAH DESTROYED THE DREAMS chances and prospects OF A CALIPHATE
    .
    Stupid Jinnah

  5. Asoka India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Thank You, Jinnah! I am putting up a big portrait of his in my office and will garland it everyday. I will also light a diya under it. He has surely gone to swarga and is sitting with Apsaras as we debate the TNT.

  6. shimr choudhary United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    ALL this discussion on TNT shows HOW BADLY

    tnt is hindu concept not muslim.islam is message will continue to effect the thought and action of humanity.future of india is in islam not brhmnsm.brhmnsm thinks that man is born unequal.idea which is being rejected by masses.

  7. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Shimr

    Just wanted to know ( please reply)

    What is Ashraf/Ajlaf and Arzal among Muslims?

  8. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Ashoka

    Well, it is true that Jinnah was the single biggest benefactor of Hindus (and Sikhs, and Jains, and Buddhists) and of modern India since Raja Ram Mohan Roy. He saved this gang from itself. So your putting up a poster of Jinnah and garlanding it everyday would be perfectly justified. Most Indian Muslims fully understand that. Too painfully, in fact.

    But if this is correct then it also follows that this so-called respite to Hindus (and Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists) may be a temporary one. From what I can tell, Indian Muslims are too smart to let a Jinnah come up again easily. Remember, Jinnah could succeed only because of the British. That was the sole reason Indian Muslims offered him support.

  9. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Kaal jee

    I am least bothered about the discussions, the truth is we all are homo sapiens and God is a man made notion. All these differences would be gone in near future. These political cobwebs of Bramhins and Mullahs would be burnt by the new generation which would be based on humanity.

  10. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Pankaj, on one hand you Indians are quite rightly grateful to Jinnah, on the other, you call him stupid and offer him no respect. Seriously, is it not time to recognize the man as a genuine Hindu Hero, no matter what your own political leanings may be?

    Unless, of course, as a Hindu/Sikh/Jain/Buddhist you would prefer to live in Gandhi’s and Azad’s Cabinet Mission India, or in what Majumdar referred to as Bangistan, a la Sri Sarat Chandra Bose and his progeny.

  11. Asoka India Google Chrome  GT-N7100 Build/JZO54K) AppleWebKit/535.19 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/18.0.1025.166 Mobile Safari/535.19 says:

    Kaal: painful to admit. But you are right. We will get eaten up from inside and outside. There is a strong case for India to pay an annual tribute to NATO to remain in Afpak too. Since the US and European economies are going down the tube anyway it makes sense for them to be guns for hire. The French were performing that role in India in the nineteenth century and the wheel would have come full circle.

  12. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    yazid, good for you!

  13. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Why not good for you kaal?

  14. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    yazid

    Because brother, I don’t believe what you believe, although I wouldn’t want you to change your thinking. You must believe what you think objective facts, as you see them, tell you.

  15. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Thanks Kaal

    Neither I believe in Allah nor I have a faith in Hindu Gods

  16. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    yazid bhai, do you believe we are already at the end of history? or soon nearing its end. :)

  17. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    BTW, both many among the Hindu right and some of the biggest and most determined Islamists I have met online – though this phenomenon would be hard to notice fact to face – are ‘atheists’ of sorts.

  18. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    yeah I certainly believe that people who are religious fanatics would meet their end soon. As you see where Sunnis butchering Shias, Sunni denying Ahmediyas of basic rights. Idiot Bramhins oppressing dalits.

  19. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    and not to forget revering a demon as a development worker in Modi.

  20. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    yazid bhai

    That’s fantastic! It would be great to live in the demon-free world that is so near us if we would only open our doors to let it in.

    I don’t believe in that in the slightest, but I can see that that would be a wonderful belief to have!

  21. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Yes Kaal mian

    and there would be no assassinations of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti

  22. Pankaj India Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Kaalchakra

    I have written that Jinnah was STUPID
    because he DIVIDED Muslim strength
    .
    SO what is wrong in what I have written
    .
    Why the hell should I RESPECT him
    For what
    .
    His STUPIDITY has benefitted Hindus IMMEASURABLY
    .
    BTW If your enemy COMMITS SUICIDE will you moan his death and
    offer condolences
    .
    Respect is EARNED not asked for

  23. Pankaj India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Jinnah was EXTREMELY JEALOUS of Gandhi and Nehru
    .
    He had realised his stature and personality were
    MUCH inferior and poorer than BOTH Gandhi and Nehru
    .
    Gandhi was able to UNITE Hindus in a NEVER BEFORE MANNER
    .
    So Jinnah realised TWO things
    .
    1. The Golden days of ISLAM in India WILL NEVER RETURN because
    Hindus were in a majority
    .
    SO NO CHANCE of GREEN FLAG ON the RED FORT
    .
    2 Jinnah would not have been able to be the PM
    Since HE WAS DYING from TB HE WANTED to become PM
    BEFORE HIS death

  24. Pankaj India Google Chrome Windows says:

    Suppose there was NO partition
    .
    Jinnah might not have become the PM because he was dying from TB
    but AFTER NEHRU WE WOULD HAVE HAD A MUSLIM PM
    .
    Because that is the MAGIC OF DEMOCRACY
    .
    Jinnah DID NOT HAVE THE FORESIGHT to see the power
    of democracy
    .
    Muslims with a ONE THIRD strength in united India
    WOULD HAVE BEEN in a very secure and comfortable position
    .
    Add to it the PETRO DOLLARS FROM GULF NATIONS
    .
    In a United India Hindus would have been INSECURE
    because the ENTIRE MUSLIM WORLD WOULD BE
    BREATHING DOWN OUR NECKS
    .
    India would have been a DE FACTO ISLAMIC STATE

  25. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    OK. As RHR would put it the trolls are out and my religion is better than yours is the name of the game. Idiots all!

  26. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    God’s religion is best.

  27. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Romain

    Methinks both you and HP are fake RSS members. More likely Gandhites out to defame the RSS as a party of peace. Even my brother tajender, an undoubted secularist and progressive, has more fire and brimstone bubbling within him.

  28. romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Kaal,

    for you I am a pucca RSS member. Please do not insult me by calling me a Gandhites unless you mean Indira follower.

  29. Asoka India Safari iPad says:

    DNA: Men who are circumcised are in for some bad news – it puts them at a disadvantage in the bedroom, experts have claimed. A study found that those who’ve had their foreskin removed as children or adults experience less intense sexual pleasure and orgasm than their peers, the Daily Mail reported.
    .
    British doctors said that although it can reduce the risk of some types of infection, the risks associated with routine circumcision outweigh any potential benefits.
    .
    —————————-——-
    Less pleasure = More Frustration
    ……….
    Good weekend all

  30. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Romain bhai, reading you and HP, I get a feeling you are pucca RSS members for me alone.

    (Unless RSS is an organization of loony lefties. You probably also admire Sarat Chandra Bose. :) )

  31. shimr choudhary United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    kaal,

    rss is rumour spreading society.bania and feeudal muscle of india.establishing uneven society by force.

    thakur bania aur nang
    inse milkar banee jansangh.

    copy every foreign act of voilence lie and loot.

    rss is also gang of murderers blackmarketeers racketeers hoarders hawala dealers scam-opererators, danga perpetuators,infant killers rapists and wife swappers.
    rss is also biggest centre of sodomy in india.all their top laders were homo.

  32. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Shimr and Kaal mian

    Just wanted to know ( please reply)

    What is Ashraf/Ajlaf and Arzal among Muslims?

  33. Asoka India Safari iPad says:

    Shmir… Thand rakh Bhai. You will have a cardiac arrest or a stroke. All Hindus are scum. All Hindus here agree with you.

  34. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Shomir Chatterjee Bhai

    RSS is a gang of murderers and rapists who hate Muslims and Islam.

    That is why I am sure HP and Romain are Gandhites giving RSS a bad name.

    Yazid, you don’t get to decide what islam is.

  35. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Please answer me what did I do wrong!!!

    :) :) :)

  36. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Another genocide in the name of faith killing my fellow brothers in Quetta. Its a pity that some learned people still vouch for faith.

    Condolences to the bereaved families…

  37. Asoka India Safari iPad says:

    God in all his disguises is murderous.

  38. romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Kaal Mian,

    What does islam say about muslims blowing up muslims? so what is the big deal if Hindus blow up a few muslims too?

  39. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    romain says:
    February 17, 2013 at 3:32 pm
    Kaal Mian,

    What does islam say about muslims blowing up muslims? so what is the big deal if Hindus blow up a few muslims too?

    what is the big deal if we blew hindus.today big naxal attack.both are hndus.

  40. Sarah Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    We teach young Pakistani children that Pakistan was created on the basis of the two-nation theory to proudly justify the formation of an independent and secure homeland for the Indian Muslims. However, today we find Pakistanis inhabiting places all over the world. If these Indian Muslims fought for an independent country on the basis of religion, then why do they now consciously choose to co-exist with people of other religions? Does that suggest that Pakistan was founded on the wrong principles?

    Another sad but true reality is the enormity of disparate religious belief sets that are found in Pakistan today. A multitude of different religious groups hold strictly different views under the umbrella of one Islamic faith. If religion is the foremost distinguishing factor for national identity, does that justify the formation of several small nations to account for each of the different religious belief sets that exist within Pakistan?

    Moreover, now when Pakistan’s provincial representations – the Balochis, the Pakhtuns and the Sindhis – demand recognition and respect for their distinct identities in contrast to the dominating Punjabi provincial forces, isn’t it incumbent upon us to grant them their due rights and divide Pakistan as we adamantly stood for the partition of India in the past?

    http://simplestakes.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-rationality-of-national-divisions.html

Leave a Reply

*


1 × = five

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>