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. Asoka India Safari iPad says:

    People, please don’t be unkind to Rexie, his frustration with the world at large is due to an accident during his early childhood rite of initiation into Islam. His devotion to the Taliban is also a result of the same accident since he can only be a ‘receiver’ and their devotion to the god of sodom is quite legendary.
    As is evident from the nonsensical nature of his posts, which I suspect are a result of random keystrokes with a few keywords stolen from his Taliban lovers, his IQ is in the low double digits which puts him just above the common septic tank slug.
    This person needs pity more than engagement. So please be kind.

  2. Bin Ismail Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Syed (January 27, 2013 at 12:39 am)

    The creation of Bangladesh, in my opinion, does not at all falsify the Two Nation Theory. Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims had emerged as two “political” entities towards the end of British India. Among these two “political” entities, the Indian Muslim community which was numerically the smaller of the two, found itself in a disadvantaged position as compared to the Indian Hindu community. On the eve of Independence, the undivided British India finally got divided into “Two Nations” – a Hindu-majority India named “India” or “Hindustan” or “Bharat”, and a Muslim-majority India named “Pakistan”. The Muslim-majority India, named “Pakistan”, comprised of two territories – an eastern one called “East Pakistan” and its western counterpart called “West Pakistan”. In 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh. It became Bangladesh, but still remained a Muslim-majority country. Even after the creation of Bangladesh, we still have a continued materialization of the “TNT”.

    I agree. The “two” nations of the Two Nation Theory (TNT), continue to exist today as :
    1. Muslim-majority territories :
    (a) Pakistan
    (b) Bangladesh
    2. Hindu-majority territories :
    (a) India
    I would also like to add that the Two Nation Theory did happen to undergo a great degree of evolution, before it finally found expression in the form of two nation-states in 1947. The idea of two separate nation-states did not exist at the moment of the inception of this theory. It took several decades and a long series of twists and turns, before the concept of “two nations” became the idea of “two nation-states” in 1947. Then it took another two and a half decades and another series of twists and turns, before the next division took place in 1971. I believe, this topic has already been discussed at length on this forum.
    What counts, in my humble opinion, is not whether the digit preceding the “Nation Theory” is “one”, “two”, or “three”. What counts is whether we, the people of the Subcontinent, have the insight and the will needed, to subdue our own respective flares of intolerence, chauvinism and bigotry. We need to humble ourselves, at least to the point, where we are capable of beholding the other as an equal human being.

  3. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    There is a saying Mulla Naseeruddin ke haseen sapne

    U only dream. There is no downfall happening for India…….

  4. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    Bin Ismail,

    I am not from your sub-continent but very much believe in your wisdom and what you described at the end of your comments. But I also fully agree with what PPaktea has described the unbridgeable difference between the hindu and muslim cultures which directly stand against each others philosophies and way of life. What do you do with people who have not learnt to shake hands, the first step for contact between human species to show that the hands do not carry a weapon and to feel the intention of each other. We embrace to show our friendship and kiss our dearests one. How do you compromise on morals and ethics in a community which does not recognise scriptures and has a rape culture imbedded in faith and practice and for how long would you accept the inequality of women versus men.

    If you have answers for the above then you are the wise man that the entire Asian continent will need to become ONE.

    Rex Minor

  5. Khan United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    Previously, TNT stood for “Two Nation Theory”. Now, it stands for “Three Nation Theory”. It’s still TNT

  6. Ppaktea United States Safari iPad says:


    The unbridgeable part of my post was not my own comment. It was a direct quote from Jinnah’s speech at the Lahore session in 1940. The speech that defined the two nation theory.

  7. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    And on reflection, you might find that the events usualy take their own course; the creation of a separate country but without peace with the neighbour, followed by three wars and the development of hot weaponry. Is it difficult to imagine the next event namely the clash of hot weaponry? O’K there is a pause now on account of the disclosure of the Rape practices which hindu women can no longer accept lying down. Will this change hindu culture?

  8. yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Thank Allah to have spared India from Shia-Sunni ethnic clashes which kills, rips and dreads the nation every now and then……

  9. Asoka India Safari iPad says:

    MAGGU was right! This REXIE is a fraud European. “entire Asian continent will need to become ONE.”… He means one as in one under his Taliban lovers…..haha. Islamic wet dreams

  10. MilesToGo United States Safari Mac OS says:

    We give too much credit to Jinnah and Iqbal. Two Nation Theory was first invented by Allah and then taught to Muhammed who implemented and propagated it.

    Let us not question what Allah has made halal.

    Kafirized Muslims are going to destroy Allah’s religion.

    Muslim nation is far superior than Kuffar nation. Sooner the humanity realizes, better.

  11. ex paki United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Raja Sahib,

    Main Na Hindu Na Musalman Mujeh Jenay Dou
    Doustee Hay Mera Eemaan Mujeg Jenay Dou

  12. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    “I agree. The “two” nations of the Two Nation Theory (TNT), continue to exist today as :
    1. Muslim-majority territories :
    (a) Pakistan
    (b) Bangladesh
    2. Hindu-majority territories :
    (a) India”
    There is still no evidence for this theory. Subcontinental Muslims do not comprise a nation any more than subcontinental Hindus do, much less do they comprise one nation together, or two nations separately. They are three sovereign nations at the present time.

  13. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:


    I believe you if you say that what you said is a quote from Mr Jinnah. It is a pity though that he did not elaborate nor did his admirers at a later stage for the benefit of coming generations on the unbridgeable differences that he was alluding to?

    Rex Minor

  14. Vijay Goel India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    There were no unbridgable differences. We lived together for 800 – 900 years. I have not heard of any Hindu Muslim riots in that period.

  15. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    Goel Ji

    I don’t know history, or human nature, or politics very well, so am sufficiently intrigued by your stand. If there were indeed no unbridgeable differences then for whatever reasons leaders of the Congress and the Muslim League overlooked or ignored some obvious commonly-acceptable solutions or poltical mechanisms. Can you point out some specific solutions or mechanisms that would have simultaneously satisfied the masses of both Muslims and Hindus together – something that both would have considered just, fair, and sufficient bases for living together? For ‘masses’ you could take average folks like us who are slightly selfish, slightly altruistic; slightly risk averse, slightly brave; slightly ‘rational’ and slightly ‘irrational’ and so forth. Thanks in advance for your help.

  16. Romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    How about the option that India hand over the Kashmir Valley to Pakiland lock stock and Barrel coupled with the transfer of every muslim from Kerala to Jammu along with it?

  17. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:


    Would that have been acceptable to both – overwhelming numbers of Muslims and overwhelming numbers of Hindus, and their respective leaders – and implemented as a common solution in 1947? We should doubt that such a solution would be acceptable to Goel ji himself. Hope he clarifies. Also, what do tajender and dronacharya gain by giving up their right to present themselves as Indians today?

  18. syed United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    @Hayyer (January 28, 2013 at 7:49 am)
    //…There is still no evidence for this theory. Subcontinental Muslims do not comprise a nation any more than subcontinental Hindus do, much less do they comprise one nation together, or two nations separately. They are three sovereign nations at the present time…//
    I suppose where Bin Ismail and I agree, is on the issue that the evidence of the TNT lies in the fact that India does happen to consist of Hindu-majority states, Kashmir being the only uncomfortable exception. Pakistan happens to consist solely of Muslim-majority states. Bangladesh too, is a Muslim-majority state. This is precisely what I was pointing out, when I said in my previous comment: “..we still have a continued materialization of the “TNT”..”. As I said, the Muslim-majority states of the Indian Subcontinent do exist as entities politically separate from the union of the Hindu-majority states. This, in my opinion, is the greatest evidence of the TNT. The TNT is very much on perpetual display.

    @Khan (January 27, 2013 at 8:51 pm)
    //…Previously, TNT stood for “Two Nation Theory”. Now, it stands for “Three Nation Theory”. It’s still TNT…//
    Interesting observation.

  19. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:


    Although I am neutral about all theories of such kind, must say that ex facto arguments mean little for proving or disproving the validity of TNT.

    To make it ridiculously simple, suppose we have a goat and we have a knife, and we use the knife to cut off the goat’s head. Now, just because the goat’s head and the rest of the body and the knife continue to be separate, it does not automatically prove that the three cannot or could not co-exist had we not proceded to cut off the goat’s head.

    We will have to make a little more complicated arguments.

  20. Bin Ismail Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Hayyer (January 28, 2013 at 7:49 am)

    There is still no evidence for this theory

    The evidence lies in the materialization. My previous comment focuses on the materialization of the theory, not its genesis.

    Subcontinental Muslims do not comprise a nation any more than subcontinental Hindus do, much less do they comprise one nation together, or two nations separately

    True. But we must appreciate the difference between the terms “nation” and “nation-state”. In its initial usage, the term “Nation” in the “Two Nation Theory”, was used more as a synonym of “Community”.

    They are three sovereign nations at the present time

    Could not agree more.

  21. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    So from Two Nation Theory(TNT) to Two sovereign countries(TSC) to Two sovereign communities(TSC): if this continues we might come down to Two People who dreamt of independence from the Brits colonialists and it came true after two centuries. Let us propose the two people for Nobel prize. Other people in the world have taken more time to gain their freedom.

    Rex Minor

  22. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    Please to note that I don’t favor such a solution. Tajendar and whosoever else like to call themselves as Indians are free to do so. I don’t have an issue either with their anti brahminic or other rants. As Indians they have the right to express the ills as they see it.

    But I kinda agree with Goelji. My reasoning goes like this. The TNT essence resides in Pakiland only. The BDs have walked away from it.

    MAJ by partitioning the Indian sub-continent, not only screwed up the Indians but Pakis as well. A unsettled Pakiland on its borders makes Indians nervous primarily because Pakis still maintain and want to maintain a very strong link to the Indians.

    Quite often I am flabbergasted that after 60 years Pakis remain India centric, arab leaning, feeling, talking claims to the contrary. Their culture, their rhetoric, their justifications are based on things Indian. It is a division of two families where one feels they got the short end of the stick.

    This IMHO is the essence of the issue and will remain so forever. Handing them kashmir etc is not going to solve the problem. And being muslim in India will always burden them with the rant “you must be Paki” whenever they legitimately air their grievances.

    That is MAJ’s curse to the people of the sub-continent and result of TNT.

  23. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    Romain bhai

    Probably the biggest problem in such discussion appears to be often knowing what exactly one is talking about. TNT, for instance, can be either, on one extreme, trivialized by reconceptualizing the powerful understanding of a ‘qaum’ into just another associational ‘community’ (much as Gandhi and Nehru chose to interpret it, with fairly unhappy results for them), or, on the other extreme, casting it as the strong argument that Muslims and Hindus cannot/could not at all live together (obviously incorrectly, since Jinnah never visualized his Pakistan as completely devoid of Hindus).

    So what exactly was the actual ‘theory’ part of the ‘two nation theory’? We mostly appear to be grappling with its caricatures.

  24. Vijay Goel India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Hi Kaal salaam or namaskar whatever u like.I m not competent to answer yr question as such whereas u hv answered it yrself in yr reply to Syad Sahib at 10.42 pm. Some times two brothers born of same parents can not live together and can become sworn enemies. To my mind Religion has no role. Todays Hindus and Muslims are living quite peacefully in India and becoming friendlier by the day. The younger generation hardly has any enimity. The wounds of partition are disappearing. Of course for sake of Politics many like to segregate them but gradually both are integrating in India. Inter marriage is not all that common but otherwise no difference in the educated urban. Even in the villages Muslims no longer swear by Pakistan and consider themselves Indian and maintaning pride in their religion. Observing all rituals with panache. Partition was for political reasons as many states in India fight for partition. Sometimes partition results in healthier growth like when Punjab and Haryana got partitioned and both states have grown at a much faster rate. Many families after partition grow at a higher rate when they remain friendly. In a joint family sometimes the patriarch does not foster the growth of the younger siblings so they feel stagnated and want to break free. Then both grow. But if there is animosity and the who;e emphasis is to downplay the other then both suffer.As the sayin “Meri chahe ek ankh phute padosi ki done phoot jaye.” Its not a question of Hindus and Muslims staying together the question is of India and Pakistan becoming good neigbours.

  25. Syed Ahmed Pakistan Internet Explorer Windows says:

    One good thing this article has apparently done is to bring some good commentators back.

    I was literally getting sick of some low IQ peopel from both sides of the border just throwing trash at each other.

    Good to see Kaal, Romain, Bin Ismail, Hayyer, Majumdar, Mohan etc back

  26. Syed Ahmed Pakistan Internet Explorer Windows says:

    @ RHR

    Good article by the way

  27. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Goel ji

    Although, so far as we know, the partition did not resemble a brotherly division of family property, your post highlights the obvious point – that neither the separation nor its continuation can itself be taken as the evidence or materialization of any one particular probably cause or theory. That is, before one can defend the Two Nation Theory, one must first present a theory.

  28. Romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    Please explain TNT.


  29. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    The process of a dialogue has not been derailed with Pakistan says the Indian High Commissoner and visa for senior citizens are stil being granted, says the Pakistan minister. Say therefore your piece as well on TNT before the peace comes to end. Better still, the Indian contrahands of the younger generation interact within the Hindu society to reflect inview of current developments in the world; the muslims have already commenced a process, not very peaceful though for Aufklarung.

    The leading world powersis are moving into the next phase of a cyber War between the protagonists! Iran and the USA are the first! China, Japan and North Korea are preparing for the return round.

    Rex Minor

    Rex Minor

  30. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Bin Ismael and Syed
    Neither India nor Pakistan is a nation state, BD is close to being one. The TNT or the TCT if you prefer, was always couched as a loose imprecise narrative because it was incapable of refinement.
    The search for political power that impelled Jinnah and the minority Muslims did not empower the great bulk of them. The majority Muslims had power anyway and they lost some of it in the division of Punjab and Bengal. Pakistani sovereignty is badly defined when it is confused with Muslim sovereignty, and India is ill understood when referred to as a Hindu nation though its ethos is no doubt largely Hindu.

  31. Vijay Goel India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Kaalji You had said “For ‘masses’ you could take average folks like us who are slightly selfish, slightly altruistic; slightly risk averse, slightly brave; slightly ‘rational’ and slightly ‘irrational’ and so forth.” Let me emphasise the words like us. So my theories are also like an average man’s. Cause and effect in matters spanning centuries of common existance are not my domain. I believe that sometimes like in families living happily together circumstances happen maybe because of internal conflicts or Politics or because of outside influences which the family bonding is not able to negate division takes place. I think India got partitioned thats the fact. Why ? The question is beyond me. The problem is that our conflicts are not getting resolved. Is it because of different religions ? I do not believe so. Can we resolve them ? I believe yes. Not by Breast beating like what happened when a soldiers body was found headless. War and conflicts are terrible and much worse things happen. The Anchors were crying hoarse Generals thumping fists and then….? Only a few passengers stranded in the cold a few traders trucks with perishable goods stranded. An Indian retired General said on TV that Barkha Dutt a well known reporter or NDTV had said that many years earlier she had found the head of a Pakistani soldier outside an army officers tent somewhere in Kashmir. But who would listen to the peacenics.Some one rightly said that Politics is the last refuge of the scoundrel.Only redeeming feature is that for every such cruel story there are hundeds and thousands of toiling flowers doing their respective jobs born to blush unseen and waste their fragarence in the desert air.

  32. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    Neither India nor Pakistan is a Nation state, BD is close to being one, says Hayyer. Why must Hayyer says this on PTH in year 2013? Are the people of these territories have been oblivion of this truth.

    Is it the IQ level which Indians delude to or due to too much fluid in the body membranes? Indian Nation suffered a setback in 1980 when Indira military cut down the khalsas and its continued occupation of the Kasmiri land. Pakistan military has been playing similar criminal and colonial tactics to suppress the Nations feelings of its people.
    We expect scotland, Northern Irland and possiby wales to break down the hold of England and leave the Uion in this ecae but still remain as part of the European community. Why was this not possible for the so called Indic Nations before 1947 or in the future years? IQ, lack of vision or short sightedness?

    Rex Minor

  33. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    whatever the reason for partition or whatever one fact remains. Your IQ is below that of a moron. Whether it is lack of fluid or full of it – go figure :)

  34. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Kaal mian,

    When did lack of understanding a point prevent us from pontificating on it ?

  35. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    use of Thomas Gray was very apt. Maybe Kaal and RHR can explain politics and altruism are difficult to achieve in synchronicity and perhaps average and/or
    below average people like me can understand.

  36. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    in conclusion to your well articulated thesis, I am afraid you are wrong. MAJ said Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent were a separate nation. Bangladesh proved him otherwise. In the end the Muslims were as much Bengali, Assamese, bihari etc as the hindus christians, etc

  37. Skeptic India Safari iPad says:

    As the proportion of Muslims go up in India and Europe there will be a revival of TNT.

  38. Syed Ahmed Pakistan Internet Explorer Windows says:


    I dont think RHR has denied that Muslims were also Bengalis as well. In fact the entire article is about so called hybrid identity. If you read hiss article you will find that he does not talk about merely Muslims but emphasizes that when Bengalis voted for Pakistan they were voting as as Bengali Muslims and were of the opinion that by joining Pak, their hybrid identity would be safeguarded.

  39. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    It is the Phil, the jew from Alexandria who was friend of sophy, the knowledge. Hence the Philosophy was born. Intellect is superior to non intellect and intelligence instead of foolishness which rules the hearts and minds of people. Mr Jinnah was a great visionary and proved that his opponent congressmen were just a bunch of riffrafs who simply because of their perception for being classified as superiors to other sects in their faith, were of the opinion to be the next ruling class of India.

    Indira Gandhi has proven for all times to come that Hindu leaders are not capable of uniting different sectors of their communities. The appointment of muslims and sikhs in the international arena is sound considering the sexism explosion among hindu citizens. The emergence of Bangla Desh has proven that the Pakistan leaders of lesser intellect were not capable of keeping the Bengali people as part of their Nation. Who if I may ask has appeared in Pakistan after Mr Jinnah, capable of making a Nation of the muslim people. None sir and todate.

    I would not give a security job, to Delhi born Musharaf, for guaring a Hotel nor would I ever allow zardari or his compatriots a job of a cashier. Pakistan needs a FÜhrer at this time!

    Rex Minor

    Ps sexism is a unique phenomina in the orient, it plays a great role in the west too when men want to exert power. What has been happening in India is Rapes which is the expression of hate agist women an not love.

  40. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    A Muslims is a Muslim first – all other identities are meaningless.

  41. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Muslims and kuffar are two separate nations – it is a fundamental Islamic concept. Wherever Muslims get to 15% of population, new pakistan’s will rise. That’s the power of ummah.

  42. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Syed Mian,

    that is why RHR is wrong. MAJ and ML never talked about a hybrid entity. They talked only about a Muslim identity and a hindu identify.

    BDs created a hyrbid entity which proved TNT a mistake. So my rebuttal to RHR that his premise of creation of BD does not disprove TNT.


  43. MilesToGo United States Safari Mac OS says:

    RHR is human after all. He has a track record of correcting himself.

  44. Syed Ahmed Pakistan Internet Explorer Windows says:


    Well TNT is not like a theory of economics which is spelt out in clear and concise terms. I think RHR has not tried to define it (for that matter even MAJ) did not define it that clearly in the first place. What RHR has tried to show that idea that Hindus and Muslims can be bracketed as seperate nations was a product of complex interplay between identities. And those who voted for Pakistan were voting for it due to complex reasons rather than this much touted and naive reason of just Hindus and Muslims are just different and can not live together.
    The concept of hybrid identity is the reason why people actually voted for Pakistan. It is not spelt out in the theory ( and TNT is not that clearly spelt out in the first place). I mean for political purposes it can not even be spelt out due to complexity. No one raises a political slogan like” Bengalis vote for your hybrid identity”. Political slogans are kept simple. What I am trying to say is that one should not interpret a political slogan like ” Hindus and Muslims are seperate nation” as a theory. In reality why people actually vote is much more complex.

    And his argument is simply that Bengalis actually once again by opting for independent Bangladesh once again voted for their hybrid identity.

    I think it is a complex argument and well articulated.

    Of course since TNT is itself so convulated and has multiple interpretations, it is difficult to define what makes it a “success” or a failure

    I think RHR will defend himself better but he never tried to defend TNT. his argument is that creation of bangladesh is not a strong enough reason to discard TNT.

    Anyways, after along time a good discussion on PTH.

  45. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:


    I must admit that Bengali Muslims remain something of a mystery to me. It seems to me that Bangladeshis (by which I refer primarily to secular Bangladeshi Muslim intellectuals) have not very persuasively or passionately argued against TNT (or, have they?). Someone here who has followed internal Bangladeshi discourse about such things may help us out, if possible. Bangali Muslim intellectuals were also, seemingly, ahead of Muslims elsewhere in articulating and fighting for a separation based primarily on religious identities (their argument being no different from Jinnah’s that Muslims were the persecuted and deprived lot, who needed to manage their own affairs). From a distance, it seems to me that TNT remains nowhere more self-evident than in Bengal where the Bengali Muslim sees economic issues in religious terms and was thus the first to seek separation, while the Bengali Hindu sees religious issues in economic terms and remains, by and large, very determinedly the last to grasp any need for separation. The Bengali Hindu, more than even the Punjabi Hindu suffers from a sense of a ‘loss’ that a ‘part of Bengal’ was ‘unnecessarily lost.’ I doubt that many Bangladeshi Muslims ever share that feeling.

    I would guess that tajender represents the ‘average’ Bangladeshi Muslim view that separation was necessary because of some aspect of Hindu society (brahmins, banias, insult to Islam, or whatever else needed) and had little to do with any aspect or dynamics of the Islamic society. Substantially, that is not at all different from Jinnah’s view.

    All this is of course pure speculation on my part, since few people know less about Bengal and Bangladeshis than do I.

  46. Vijay Goel India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Romain Bhai ! Tx for recognising Thomas Gray’s lines. Volumes hv been written on Heroes,Charioteers and Musketteers ver y few on Am Admi. Another line I like is “They also serve who stand and wait”. With sms et all very little inspiring poetry is found in classical literature but we hv some great sms’s floating around. Many Hindi Film songs are no less inspiring.

  47. Yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    @ Kaal
    Earlier (before 1906), the zamindars in Bengal were mostly Hindus who ruled over the people. In the eastern part the Muslim population was more. Yet, the base of Islam had been more on Peers and on Sufi culture. Another thing is that Pakistan is not the torchbearer of Islam in the world. Discarding the main essence of Sufism has turned Pakistan into a deathbed. How in the world in a garrison city you do not know that Osama is staying. It is when US is paying you billions to fight against terror.

  48. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Yazid bhai

    I am sure it wouldn’t surprise you to be reminded that these sufis and pirs were close allies of Mr Jinnah and helped popularize and implement his TNT :)

  49. Yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    yes Kaal

    and that is why India is surging haead (thanks to MAJ)

Leave a Reply


− 5 = four

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>