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. Yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    and India is not a kabrgah of Shias

  2. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    THE MENACE OF HINDU FASCISM
    Dr. W.C. Deb
    Eminent Hindu leader of Bengal
    Says the three “eminent” Congress leaders — Lal, Bal, Pal — engineered partition of India. Hindu terrorist Savarkar’s call to “Hinduise politics and militarise Hinduism” inflicted so much violence on Muslims.
    Calcutta University was a Hindu fortress. Most Hindus in every village were richer than the richest Muslim. Not a single Muslim had cultivable land in my village. In the 80s, Hindu communalism transformed into Hindu fascism.
    It was the Muslim invaders who gave us the name “Hindu”. Savarkar formulated the “two-nation theory” much before Jinnah. The worst anti-Muslim culprit was Bankim Chandra Chatterji, a Bengali Brahmin, the author of Vande Mataram. Muslims never observed untouchability. That is how Dalits opted for Islam in a big way and got liberated.
    Muslim rulers Indianised themselves. Dalits fought Brahmins and when defeated embraced Budhism and fought them again after becoming Muslims. Bengali Muslims are mostly Dalit converts. Even Swami Vivekananda said “Islam was a great blessing and liberated the oppressed”. Upper castes partitioned Bengal. Gandhi was a cunning fox” and “a Hindu revivalist”.
    “Babri Masjid” was a Hindu conspiracy.
    Muslims are too poor to be polygamous but Bengali Brahmins were polygamous.
    Though an upper caste Hindu (Kayasth), Deb is very critical of Gandhi, Nehru, and all the Bengali upper castes. On the Babri Masjid, he says it was a Brahmin-instigated conspiracy as old as 1885. He quotes L.K. Advani, the villain who demolished the Masjid: “The Congress wanted the demolition and they had it done by us”.

  3. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    THE MENACE OF HINDU FASCISM
    Dr. W.C. Deb
    Eminent Hindu leader of Bengal
    Says the three “eminent” Congress leaders — Lal, Bal, Pal — engineered partition of India. Hindu terrorist Savarkar’s call to “Hinduise politics and militarise Hinduism” inflicted so much violence on Muslims.
    Calcutta University was a Hindu fortress. Most Hindus in every village were richer than the richest Muslim. Not a single Muslim had cultivable land in my village. In the 80s, Hindu communalism transformed into Hindu fascism.
    It was the Muslim invaders who gave us the name “Hindu”. Savarkar formulated the “two-nation theory” much before Jinnah. The worst anti-Muslim culprit was Bankim Chandra Chatterji, a Bengali Brahmin, the author of Vande Mataram. Muslims never observed untouchability. That is how Dalits opted for Islam in a big way and got liberated.
    Muslim rulers Indianised themselves. Dalits fought Brahmins and when defeated embraced Budhism and fought them again after becoming Muslims. Bengali Muslims are mostly Dalit converts. Even Swami Vivekananda said “Islam was a great blessing and liberated the oppressed”. Upper castes partitioned Bengal. Gandhi was a cunning fox” and “a Hindu revivalist”.
    “Babri Masjid” was a Hindu conspiracy.
    Muslims are too poor to be polygamous but Bengali Brahmins were polygamous.
    Though an upper caste Hindu (Kayasth), Deb is very critical of Gandhi, Nehru, and all the Bengali upper castes. On the Babri Masjid, he says it was a Brahmin-instigated conspiracy as old as 1885. He quotes L.K. Advani, the villain who demolished the Masjid: “The Congress wanted the demolition and they had it done by us”.

  4. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Kaalchakra
    .
    Kaal, the urban Bangladesh is not much different from the urban West Bengal. Both share a common interest in music, literature, theater, (Tagore and Nazrul are popular on both sides, Allauddin Khan, Ali Akbar, Vilayat Khan were East Bengalis) and a significantly less interest in the matters about the hereafter than their co-religionists elsewhere. Whatever ambivalence an average Bangladeshi feels about India is a legacy of their being part of Pakistan for a quarter of a century. Aside from that I would be surprised if an average Muslim Bangladeshi considers an average Hindu Bangladeshi any less of a Bangladeshi. It would be wrong to say that Bangladesh today is the ultimate liberal paradise but its attitude of shared citizenship among various religious communities is surely a death knell to TNT. On this I fully agree with PPaktea who espoused beautifully on this point earlier.
    .
    I have not followed the internal Bangladeshi discourse on this topic but attach below an article from a prominent Bangladeshi newspaper on TNT that may shed some light.
    .
    Rural Bangladesh may be a different story but my guess would be even that is significantly less islamically indoctrinated than rural Pakistan, for instance.
    .
    “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).”
    .
    There is a grain of truth in the statement that the Muslims in Bengal were the deprived lot (traditionally they had been the landless farmers and the Hindus the landed gentry, especially in what is now Bangladesh.) But the Muslim League was formed in Dhaka by the efforts of Dhaka’s Nawab who was a notable feudal himself. Lord Curzon successfully persuaded the Nawab to support the Company’s Bengal division plan (just as a coincidence, the Treasury of the East India Company extended a huge monetary loan to the Nawab just at this time). Your statement that the Bengali Muslim intellectuals in 1905 articulated and fought for a separate homeland based on religion is perhaps not correct. The partition plan was that of the Company and the anti-partition movement of 1905 was by and large bi-communal. Large sections of the Muslim population, especially from what is now West Bengal, firmly resisted Curzon’ plan. In fact had the Muslims wanted it, the partition would have happened, S. N. Bannerjee or not, as they had always been numerically far superior in Bengal.
    .
    “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.”
    .
    The Hindus from W.B. who are originally from the East, but had to flee after Bangladesh became East Pakistan, have a general feeling of animus towards Bangladesh. After Bangladesh became an independent country persecution of the Hindus stopped, although some form of religion-neutral, trickle-down, migration has continued. An average West Bengali today has a very vague idea about Bangladesh (and perhaps vice versa) and that idea is mostly colored by the East Pakistan experience. But any look at the average urban Bangladeshi household makes it clear (to those who have seen) how similar it is to an average urban household in West Bengal. Some have said that in Bangladesh the religion of Tagore has trumped the religion of Muhammad (at least whenever the Awami League is in power) and it may actually be true.
    .
    I would strongly doubt if Tajender represents an average Bangladeshi Muslim. To the extent he represents any community from Bengal he would be closer to one from West Bengal. In my limited experience, the Calcutta Muslims are different from the Dhaka Muslims, the primary difference being the language. If Tajender is indeed from Bengal I would guess he is from W.B. as he often breaks out in Urdu.

  5. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Kaalchakra
    .
    Kaal, the urban Bangladesh is not much different from the urban West Bengal. Both share a common interest in music, literature, theater, (Tagore and Nazrul are popular on both sides, Allauddin Khan, Ali Akbar, Vilayat Khan were East Bengalis) and a significantly less interest in the matters about the hereafter than their co-religionists elsewhere. Whatever ambivalence an average Bangladeshi feels about India is a legacy of their being part of Pakistan for a quarter of a century. Aside from that I would be surprised if an average Muslim Bangladeshi considers an average Hindu Bangladeshi any less of a Bangladeshi. It would be wrong to say that Bangladesh today is the ultimate liberal paradise but its attitude of shared citizenship among various religious communities is surely a death knell to TNT. On this I fully agree with PPaktea who espoused beautifully on this point earlier.
    .
    I have not followed the internal Bangladeshi discourse on this topic but here’s an article from a prominent Bangladeshi newspaper on TNT that may shed some light.
    http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=68715
    .
    Rural Bangladesh may be a different story but my guess is even that is significantly less islamically indoctrinated than rural Pakistan, for instance.
    .
    “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).”
    .
    There is a grain of truth in the statement that the Muslims in Bengal were the deprived lot (traditionally they had been the landless farmers and the Hindus the landed gentry, especially in what is now Bangladesh.) But the Muslim League was formed in Dhaka by the efforts of Dhaka’s Nawab who was a notable feudal himself. Lord Curzon successfully persuaded the Nawab to support the Company’s Bengal division plan (just as a coincidence, the Treasury of the East India Company extended a huge monetary loan to the Nawab just at this time). Your statement that the Bengali Muslim intellectuals in 1905 articulated and fought for a separate homeland based on religion is perhaps not correct. The partition plan was that of the Company and the anti-partition movement of 1905 was by and large bi-communal. Large sections of the Muslim population, especially from what is now West Bengal, firmly resisted Curzon’ plan. In fact had the Muslims wanted it, the partition would have happened, S. N. Bannerjee or not, as they had always been numerically far superior in Bengal.
    .
    “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.”
    .
    The Hindus from W.B. who are originally from the East, but had to flee after Bangladesh became East Pakistan, have a general feeling of animus towards Bangladesh. After Bangladesh became an independent country persecution of the Hindus stopped, although some form of religion-neutral, trickle-down, migration has continued. An average West Bengali today has a very vague idea about Bangladesh (and perhaps vice versa) and that idea is mostly colored by the East Pakistan experience. But any look at the average urban Bangladeshi household makes it clear (to those who have seen) how similar it is to an average urban household in West Bengal. Some have said that in Bangladesh the religion of Tagore has trumped the religion of Muhammad (at least whenever the Awami League is in power) and it may actually be true.
    .
    I would strongly doubt if Tajender represents an average Bangladeshi Muslim. To the extent he represents any community from Bengal he would be closer to one from West Bengal. In my limited experience, the Calcutta Muslims are different from the Dhaka Muslims, the primary difference being the language. If Tajender is indeed from Bengal I would guess he is from W.B. as he often breaks out in Urdu.

  6. Majumdar India Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Nc mian,
    .
    If I understand correct, a good chunk of Cal Muslims wud essentially be migrants from Bihar and UP.
    .
    Kaal bhai,
    .
    I guess Tajender bhai is our old friend Fosa from chowk.
    .
    Regards

  7. Hayyer India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    There are very many Bengali speaking Muslims native to Bengal in West Bengal but they are hard to find in Kolkata. I have never met one.

  8. syed United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    @no-communal (January 30, 2013 at 11:24 am)
    .
    Thankyou for introducing to us, the brilliant article “Two-nation theory” by Ishfaq Ilahi Choudhury. Excellent analysis. I would, however, like to share with you my own perspective on some of excerpts from this article:
    .

    //…What is the “two-nation theory?” It is based on the assumption that the Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent needed separate states. The idea, initially postulated by Allama Iqbal in 1937, was taken up by the All India Muslim League led by M.A. Jinnah…//
    I think this is how the Two Nation Theory is understood today – not what it meant back then. Iqbal, let us not forget, himself denied any such intention or interpretation, when he explained and clarified his Allahabad address to an old friend of his, in an elaborate letter. I think we need to see the difference between “having separate countries for Hindus and Muslims” and “Hindu-majority provinces having a separate political identity from Muslim-majority provinces”. The real flaw, in my opinion, in the TNT is, as Bin Ismail has rightly pointed out, that the term “nation” never meant “nation-state” – at least not until the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah was prepared to leave India undivided. It was Nehru then, who emerged as the Divider of India, by frustrating the CMP.
    Until that happened, the TNT from Jinnah’s viewpoint, was nothing but the Two Community Theory.

  9. syed United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    //…Muslim League adopted a resolution in 1940 calling for the establishment of “Pakistan,” a separate homeland for the Muslims…//
    .
    The original draft of the Lahore Resolution proposed “states”, not “state”. History has proven that the original idea of Pakistan, consisting of 2 states, was definitely more realistic. Today, Pakistan and Bangladesh are the two “states” originally envisaged in the Lahore Resolution of 1940. Pakistan was never designated as a “Homeland for Muslims”. Pakistan’s founder thought and spoke of Pakistan as the home for “all” living in it.

    //…Pakistan and Israel are the only two countries that were created on the basis of religion…//
    .
    Pakistan was not “created” on the basis of Religion. It was “hijacked” in the name of Religion.

    //…The fallacy of the two-nation theory is brought out eloquently by Irfan Husain, a Pakistani columnist, when he writes: “This theory sought to bind a Muslim in Dhaka with one in Dharampura, and a Hindu in Sukkur with one in Simla. The reality was very different. A Muslim Bengali had far more in common with a Hindu from Calcutta than a Punjabi Muslim, while a Pushtun from Durra is much closer culturally and ethnically to his cousin in Jalalabad in Afghanistan than he is to a Muslim in Chittagong. These very real differences were glossed over by the
    over-simplifications on which the two-nation theory is based…//
    .
    Irfan Husain has put that very eloquently.

  10. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Hayer,

    you havent looked hard enuf.

  11. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    The Liberal/Hindu Tribune (:)) has a concurrent discussion going on on the same theme, and there too one finds many Indian commentators conflating two completely different issues – the prevalence of peeri-sufi-muridism and anti TNT stance.

    Peeri-sufi-muridism always was, and will remain, a TOOL of TNT, not a bulwark against it.

    Today, if some aspects of peeri-sufi-muridism are speaking out against TNT it is because it is trying to save itself from Islam, not because it has discovered any contradictions within itself, or any overarching oneness, except on its own terms.

    —————-

    I have a bad habit of making, every now and then, statements that regretfully earn me the undying displeasure of some of my best friends. Here is one such :)

    Separatist TNT was not the result of “Islamic fanaticism” as such, as many Hindus believe. It was the result of four (Islamic?) P’s:

    The prince,
    The playboy,
    The pir, and
    The politician.

    ———————

    Thanks NC. That was very helpful, indeed. Majumdar dada, a rose by any name smells just as good to me :)

  12. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Syed Mian,

    Pakistan’s founder also had his grey moments (like the rest of us mortals). IF you are looking for root causes for the divide then really it is the census of 1908(??) that for the first time asks for the religion of an individual

    Please provide a link to Irfan Hussain article for it seems we seem to think alike.

  13. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Syed Mian,

    one additional thought. The issue is not how he got there, the issue is that he carried out his threat, having lost politically. He, ie, MAJ, could have decided to fight another day but didnt.

  14. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    NC

    thanks for the Link

    Saad sb,

    I guess this rtd commodore has been reading your articles.

  15. Romain United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Kaal mian,

    that is an interesting postulation – 4 ps. An article on it would be very be very elucidating.

  16. no-communal United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Majumdar
    .
    I think so too. A large chunk of Calcutta Muslims are from up north.
    .
    Hayyer Sb.
    .
    Yes, the Muslims in north Bengal are Bengali speaking. The districts of Murshidabad, Malda etc.
    .
    syed
    .
    Thank you for your comment.
    .
    “I think we need to see the difference between “having separate countries for Hindus and Muslims” and “Hindu-majority provinces having a separate political identity from Muslim-majority provinces”. The real flaw, in my opinion, in the TNT is, as Bin Ismail has rightly pointed out, that the term “nation” never meant “nation-state” – at least not until the failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah was prepared to leave India undivided. It was Nehru then, who emerged as the Divider of India, by frustrating the CMP.
    Until that happened, the TNT from Jinnah’s viewpoint, was nothing but the Two Community Theory.”
    .
    syed, without getting into another debate on who meant what when they said something else, let me just ask you this: even if we accept, for the sake of the argument, that what Jinnah really wanted was something similar to the CMP, why did he have to choose complete separation into two independent nation states as the next best option? In other words, why was the grouping clause in the CMP so very important that, failing which, even a moth-eaten but sovereign Pakistan was acceptable but not the earlier system in which the majority Muslims would have had political power anyway in both the areas that became Pakistan? If the goal of TNT was really that the “Hindu-majority provinces having a separate political identity from Muslim-majority provinces” and the “nation” in TNT really meant “communities”, why were only a grouped federation and a complete separation put on the table but not the system in which the Muslim majority provinces would have had Muslim governments anyway even independent of TNT?
    .

  17. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    Tajender,
    Your post dated jan. 30, it was the muslim invaders who gave us the name ‘Hindu’, formulated Savarkar. How were they called originaly?

    Is the current generation of people in India aware that the name ‘Hindu’ was given to them by the muslim invaders and the name ‘Indian’ was given to them by the Brits invaers? How come no one touches them or shakes hands with them? Do the Indian muslims have anything to do with this custom as well?

    Rex Minor

  18. Pankaj India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    BASICALLY Partition has been a DISASTER for
    the MUSLIMS of SOUTH ASIA
    .
    The Muslims KNOW IT
    .
    That is why you have such articles appearing REGULARLY
    by VARIOUS Analysts / commentators/ writers

    .
    Muslims of PAKISTAN KEEP ANALYSING Why Partition Happened
    And WHETHER it was NECESSARY and Whether Pakistani Muslims
    have GAINED ANYTHING
    .
    Muslims of INDIA have ACCEPTED this tragedy as THEIR FATE
    .
    Bangladeshis are TOO BUSY saving themselves from DROWNING
    in FLOODS as well saving their fledgling democracy
    FROM RAZAKARS / JAMATIS and the Military

  19. Yazid United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Rexie mian

    when you are sure about the fact that Pakistanis are different from Indians. Why are you so interested to know about the Indians with the claim that you are from the Nazi world….

  20. Pankaj India Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    There are 500 MILLION MUSLIMS in SOUTH ASIA
    .
    But what is the F**KING USE
    .
    500 MILLION MUSLIMS but GOOD FOR NOTHING
    .
    Pakistani Muslims are in a DEBT TRAP as well in A DEATH Trap
    of EXTREMISM
    .
    Indian Muslims are …..
    Need I say anything
    .
    Bangladeshi Muslims are in a SAD AND PITIABLE condition
    .
    GOD BLESS JINNAH

  21. Ppaktea United States Safari iPad says:

    To add to NC’s response to Syed, what people often fail to point out is that Jinnah and the Muslim League’s supposed acceptance of the CMP was not to get a united India, but as a furtherance of their aim to get a sovereign Pakistan. Read the resolution of the Muslim League dated June 6 1946. Also, this is what Jinnah had to say on 22 May – he was clear and unambiguous that a sovereign Pakistan was his aim and in his view the ony thing that would satisfy the Muslim League. I quote.

    I regret that the Mission should have negatived the Muslim demand for the establishment of a complete sovereign state of Pakistan, which we still hold is the only solution of the constitutional problem of India and which alone can secure stable Governments and lead to the happiness and welfare not only of the two major communities, but of all the peoples of this sub-continent.

    The Congress statements on the issue (particularly Nehru’s) which are blamed for the failure of the Cabinet mission plan by Jnnah apologists came *after* Jinnah’s too clever by half “acceptance” of the CMP.

    Jinnah apologists have a habit of ignoring what he himself had to say and drawing interpretations from thin air about what he “really” thought.

  22. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    “Jinnah apologists have a habit of ignoring what he himself had to say and drawing interpretations from thin air about what he “really” thought.”

    That can’t be the case. Surely Mr Sugata Bose and Mrs Ayesha Jalal Bose must have some real evidence to back up their claims.

  23. Ppaktea United States Safari iPad says:

    If you read them, the answer is no.

  24. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    “If you read them, the answer is no.”

    Do you mean to say, Sir, that the Ayesha and Sugata Bose couple are simply perpetrating an ‘interpretationist’ fraud on ignorant masses who are actively looking to ‘believe’ and on Westerners who have no clue about the subcontinent anyway? :(

    I hope that is not true. In fact, I am certain the two have disovered some real evidence that they will soon share – only for aesthetic reasons, if for nothing else.

  25. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    500 MILLION MUSLIMS but GOOD FOR NOTHING
    .
    Pakistani Muslims are in a DEBT TRAP as well in A DEATH Trap
    of EXTREMISM………….. though i am against partition but their condition has improved a lot after partition.sidh has no university before partition now there are thousands of school and colleges.due to waae country is flooded with money.punjabi muslim was destitute.now lahore is far more beautiful than anyother city of india.
    in hockey and cricket they are ahead of us,snooker champion of world is paki.squash they are leader.fraud and 420 nobody can defea them.in defense technology they are ahead of us.

    condition of hindus in india is also not better than them,we are 137.poverty in some part of india is more than subsahara region.because of hindu value system country is going everyday.poverty is increasing.
    .
    Indian Muslims are …..
    Need I say anything……..they are victim of brhmnsm.inspite IAS TOPPER WAS MUSLIM CBSE TOPPER IS MUSLIM.best film stars are muslims.
    apj is best scientist of india.we are no.1 boaster.tel me name of one extraordinary person we produced after partition.
    .
    Bangladeshi Muslims are in a SAD AND PITIABLE condition…..ignorance is bliss.general condition of bengladeh is better than people of west bengal.i advise u see the datas.muslims countries are the victim of imperialism.
    .
    GOD BLESS JINNAH
    jinnah never wanted pakistan.it was forced on him.

  26. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Your post dated jan. 30, it was the muslim invaders who gave us the name ‘Hindu’, formulated Savarkar. How were they called originaly

    rex…they had no name.muslim made india or hindustan.before there were small princely states who used to fight each other.their paighambers come for ethenic cleansing not to spread love or tranquility.same they are doing now.they mastered themselve themselve in art of sex and war.

  27. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    Tajender,
    Jinnah never wanted Pakistan, it was forced on him.

    Your statement has some logic, considering that everything that Pakistani Govts. have been following since independence with respect to India have been a load of half thought through but quick reactions to provocations. No initiatives, no originality, no thought for the people and one sees their represenatives around the world like headless chickens easily recognisabe with new faces following the change in their Govts. at home. Everyone has been given the chance to rule and today one sees probably the last sindhi illetrate occupying the chair of the Jinnah legacy which has no say but a great say. The last act of the Govt being the decision to come closer to China and Iran facilitating the exit America from the war waters of the Arabian see.

    This is hardly an act of the moth eaten but sovereign Pakistan.

    Rex Minor

    Ayesha Jalal and Sagata Bose did prove Jinnah’s theory of inter marriagen, unless they have a marriage contract similar to the one Jackie kenney had with Onasis.

  28. Ppaktea United States Safari iPhone says:

    Evidence in historical work is typically not like the evidence in scientific work. There is usually a degree of interpretation that goes into any work of history. Hence I wouldn’t call it fraud. But the interpretation is based on tenuous facts and ignores the bulk of the facts. Contrarian and revisionist views often sell well in the discipline, and that is unfortunate to the extent that it sells only because it is revisionist.

  29. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    Ppaktea,

    well said. History is the interpretation of one individual who writes as the history takes its course or writes after the history has take place. Who knows, what the archeologists will discover and the historians will write after the lapse of a thousand years, if at all there is something to write about. The founder of the Pakistan muslim Nation shall be remembered for all times to come as Ata Turk is remembered in Turkey which is gradualy edging towards the Arabic Nations. There are few who are destined to make history as there are few who write and rewrite history.

    Rex Minor

  30. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Continuing to think aloud about Bangladesh – How far from TNT?

    I made the point earlier that TNT was never about ‘backward Islamic fanaticism’. So the line of thinking that ‘Islamic fanaticism has taken over Pakistan’ and ‘Bangladesh has adopted progressive Sufi-Mureedi coexistence’ – even if it were completely true, will mislead us as to the continuing validity of TNT.

    Another point – for whatever its worth – needs to be stated.

    Can we really compare Bangladesh of 1971 with Pakistan of 1947?

    Not really. In 1947, Jinnah’s pre-eminent goal was to remove power from the hands of (exploitative) Hindus (so, whether we agree with him or not), Hindus could not do the mischief that he expected them to do.

    Jinnah achieved that goal in 1947, for ALL of Pakistan, including, the part that later became ‘Bangladesh’.

    In 1971, Bengali Muslims never faced that same Hindu threat any more – thanks to the work Jinnah had already done for them. Thus in 1971, Bengali Muslims did not have the need to articulate the same TNT because they already benefited from it – there were no Hindus dominating the Muslim lives anymore.

    Please remember, Jinnah never suggested that Hindus and Muslims must never stay together. He merely argued that Hindus must not have overwhelming political power in a shared space. For Jinnah that was a real and live concern. For Bangladesh, consequent to Jinnah’s efforts and power already passing into the hands of Bengali Muslims, that was no more the case.

    So for those of our friends who are not very fond of TNT, giving Bangladesh any clear ‘edge’ over Pakistan does not appear to be very fair, in this historical sense as well.

  31. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    kaal during muslim rule bengal was called SONAR BANGLA.after fall of nawab sirajudaulla,brhmn british nexus started robbing bengal.converted the whole area to bhoot bangla.though i am totally against partition of india.but now what i feel it was a progressive step which provided chance to millions and millions of haves not.this is true especially in case of bangladesh.
    india will be divided again and again till problem of economic disparity is not solved.hindu fascists cannot do it.i have hope with soniajee and left front.

    pakistan is owned by army generals who are nothing but bunch of semi-educated fools.egoists live in their own world and lazy.have some hope with democracy.BUT…HAR SHAKH PE ULLU BAITHA HAI,ANJAM-E-GULISTAN KYA HOGA.

  32. Ppaktea United States Safari iPad says:

    Kamal,

    Jinnah actually did say that Hindus and Muslims could not live together in a shared nationhood. His speech at the Lahore session of the AIML in 1940 is an example. As were numerous speeches throughout the lead up to 1947. One speech on August 11 1947, that too after Pakistan had already been formed does not undo almost a decade of rabble rousing that he had, claiming that Hindus and Muslims were civilizationally incompatible with each other.

    As to exploitative. Hindus – both Hindus and Muslims were subjects of a foreign colonial power. Yes, Hindus had done better than Muslims in some provinces , but not through any power they had, but by quicker adoption of education and the opportunities presentd under British rule and by their own efforts and industry. That wasn’t true in all the provinces, and even in provinces where Hindus had done better on average, the set of people who had done relatively well was very small.. A vast majority of the population, Hndu or Muslim was illiterate and desperately poor.

  33. Ppaktea United States Safari iPad says:

    The above post was addressed to Kaal. The error was a result of the autocorrect feature in iOS.

  34. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    REX AND KAAL love to have your comment,maggu where are u we all miss u,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4JmE4BFwNY&list=UUweyNwo4cZM5gsIpuG4Zlew&index=2

  35. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Tajender, I am not a historian, but you do appear to be correct: Muslims had turned Bengal into Sonar Bangla, which then the British and Hindus (through brahmins, baniyas, marwaris etc) destroyed. But this is also a more general argument – wherever Hindus (with their banias, brahmins, marwaris etc) and Muslims co-existed. That co-existence was always on sufferance, as our friend Aaker Patel writes in the Hindu Tribune. It worked ONLY so long as Muslims had political leadership and initiative.

    ————————

    Ppaktea

    I wish I had studied history, or had the patience to study it now. I wish those luckier than I would investigate Jinnah’s statements (his actual words, not their interpretations) to see if they provide support for the following thesis:

    Hindus and Muslims are not one nation. They cannot live together as one nation. All attempts to create a single nation between the two will fail over time. However, Hindus and Muslims can live together as two separate nations, IF Muslims have political leadership and initiative over Hindus, or after such a stage has arrived.

  36. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Ppaktea

    LOL….bhranti at its best.

    kaal beech kamal hai ki kamal beech kaal hai
    kaal ka kamal hai ki kamal ka hi kaal hai.

    Ha ha, thanks for the laughs :)

  37. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    kaal, more than religion it was war between haves and haves not,hinduism creates poor,we have thousands of millionaires but biggest ghettos of the world.this difference will divide india again.unity against muslims will not last long.ramdeo was almost beaten in gauhati.he was being called indian dog.even in up hindus are converting to christianity in large numbers.victim of brhmnsm are also uniting.
    indians needs justice not bhagwan.i totally reject the idea that hindus and muslims cannot live together.sher aur bakri saath nahin rah sakte.like bengalees and punjabis in east pakistan.man kill his real brother if not happy.

  38. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    tajender

    Islam is not a religion. It is a way of life. Similarly, Hinduism is not a religion. It is a way of life. Hinduism creates poverty, injustice, and backwardness. On the other hand, Islam creates wealth, natural justice, and progressive modernism of thought. It was only in that sense that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together under Hindu leadership. If a ‘Hindu’ is not a Hindu, that is not a visible Hindu, and/or not in a leadership position, then no fair and just Muslim can have any problem with such a Hindu. As you said, it is a matter of happiness. The Hindu way of life naturally creates unhappiness while the islamic way has the opposite impact (as is evident even today in the happiness of minorities in India versus its neighbors, say).

    It was only in that sense, not in a ‘religious’ sense that TNT must be understood, because that seems to be also consonant with everything Jinnah ever said or did (pending investigation by some real historians).

  39. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    @ Kaal

    Dont encourage them!!

    btw if Islam is “modernism” and Hinduism “backwardness” something else should be explaining why India is performing much better in almost all the indicators (including education and health) compared to Pakistan and more importantly tribal areas which have “purest” Muslims

    Regards

    Raza

  40. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    RHR, you Indians are incorrigible. I really hope I get to meet with you soon. :)

    ———————————–

    2M

    It’s really a matter of perspective. Tajender and Dronacharya have, just as Jinnah had, a totally different perspective. But in truth, I have heard similar prejudices and views as yours from some Japanese and South East Asians, here in the US.

  41. Romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Kaal,

    The problem of interpretations of fact and trying to interpret what led to the facts can be a very dangerous excercise.

    IF the couple had proof other than interpretations for example on this date and at this time MAJ said this, then it becomes quite impossible to argue.

    (For example, I could analyze various posts by Rexie and come to the conclusion that Rexie is a gay and its his religion preventing him from coming out of the closet. But this may not be factual – just my interpretation. OTH, if I can post a video of him in the act then it would become factual).

    As they say show me the data.

  42. Romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    Kaal mian,

    Me kinda agree with RHR. Baiting is good sometimes but then you lose a bunch of guys who really wanna engage with you.

  43. Romain United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    m2T,

    I am sorry to hear this kinda unadulterated bullshit from a guy who presented a paper at bell labs. Dude are u telling me that islamic civilization did not contribute to Math, physics and astronomy?

    What f…. utter crap!!!

    At your age and I presume u still live in the US you a shining example of a hindu bcos of which a great country like India has been held back.

    – RSS card carrying member.

  44. m3T United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    “islamic civilization did not contribute to Math, physics, and astronomy?”

    Arabs and Persians did. Arabs and Persians had been in contact with the Greeks and Indians long before they were affected by Islam. Arabs and Persians were cosmopolitan people with active civilizations. Islam did not promote a scientific temper. It only held nations back from free thought and open debate. It merely promoted luxurious living of a few and secular developments necessary for the benefit of those few. Wherever Islam went, it either ignored or destroyed the rest. Muslim partisans promote Islam by comparing the dark ages of Europe witlh the regimes of a few personally tolerant Muslim kings in times of peace.

  45. m3T United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Islam did not suddenly overtake and overpower pre-existing civilizations it conquered. Political and civilizational battles lasted for centuries. The gains of previous civilizations built over preceding centuries could not have been destroyed in a few decades. Many traditions continued with Muslim names. In Iran that battle still goes on. However, centuries of neglect did lead to true Islamic societies in which all open debate and scientific temper would be increasingly stifled.

  46. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    m2T

    during vedic period u did not opened any school library or university anywhere in india.buhddhist period was golden period like muslim period.algebra is arabic word chemistry is from chemia astrology is all arab.

    Ramanujam, Raman, Chandrashekhar, Hargovind Khorana…

    muslims has produced thousands like them.ur achievent in field of education is very minimal.
    u people are expert in fabricating zhoot.thats all.
    eating entertainment sex and cheating is ur way of life.

    read ibn SINA and ibn rushd to read muslim contribution.
    TUM LOGON NE JEHALAT PHAILA KE 33 CRORE BHAGWAN BECHE HAIN.
    even now 70%of indians eat once in 2 days.hundreds commit suicide daily every 20 minutes there is rape.even capital is short of water and electricity.YEH CHUTIAPE KEE BATEEIN SHAKHAON MEIN BAITH KE AKELE MEIN KIYA KARO.
    U ARE CURSE FOR INDIA.

  47. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    islamic civilization did not contribute to Math, physics, and astronomy?”

    Arabs and Persians did. Arabs and Persians had been in contact with the Greeks and Indians long before they were affected by Islam

    THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS WRONG.ibn beruni introduced india to west.before that nobody was knowing india.top persian and arab.read.. scientists died 300 years before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
    zero was invented by shepherds.

  48. m3T United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    Avicenna’s case is instructive. He did not discover routes to India or to Greece. Those contacts with other advanced civilizations existed long before his lands were affected by Islam. His “Islam” too played no role in his personal progress or openness of his society. As usual Muslim partisans have attempted to appropriate him to Islam but his personal faith itself is debatable.

  49. m3T United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    “.ibn beruni introduced india to west.before that nobody was knowing india.”

    Only a Muslim will make that statement. The effect of Islam on eradicating knowledge cannot be denied.

  50. Chote Miya United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    RHR,
    “btw if Islam is “modernism” and Hinduism “backwardness” something else should be explaining why India is performing much better in almost all the indicators”
    .
    That’s a very flawed analogy. That’s like saying that America’s progress is because of Christianity. Maybe, but that theory doesn’t work in Latin America. Progress happens regardless of faith. If anything, faith is an impediment to progress. It’s a stretch to think that Hinduism suddenly started to influence progress in the last 20 years. Like most religions, it is, for the most part, full of superstitious nonsense, regressive ideas and barbarism. The only saving grace, compared to Abrahamnic faiths, is that it acknowledges(not just allow) multiple path to the almighty. Beyond that, as people have shown here time and again, it is equally hidebound, but more entertaining and colorful.

Leave a Reply

*

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>