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: , , ,

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

  1. Chote Miyan United States Safari Mac OS says:

    Err..That is the problem with jumping in without reading a post in entirety. I never said that appointing a hindu general is a mark of secularism. That line was (allegedly) taken by Dr. Sen as claimed by one Jaggu and gleefully reproduced here by HP. I was merely countering that line of reasoning. It’s improbable that Sen based his deductions on this one small fact.
    As for the rulers before Akbar, except for some notorious ones, they were, in general, tolerant. Jaziya even if imposed, was rarely enforced. An ideologue ruler could not survive in India or elsewhere. Some of the prominent examples are Altamash (Iltutmish, even though he sacked Ujjain), his daughter Razia Sultana who was also the earliest known example of a ruler clashing with the clergy and openly lamenting that the holy book was meant to interpreted metaphorically, not literary. Muhammad Tugluq, who, in my view, is the most fascinating of all the Muslim rulers. Despite a general posturing as a Muslim, he was, for most part, an agnostic with a deep understanding of various philosophies, intellectually curious and extremely bright. Alauddin Khilji was a ruler first and religion came way down the list for him. It’s inconceivable that someone like Amir Khusrau could flourish in a stifling atmosphere. The Lodhis, as I mentioned earlier, had a general tolerant outlook. Against Humayun, it was the Pathan-Rajput combination that held fort. Abolition of Jaziya was a very important landmark but Akbar was not the first to do it, even though as an emperor of significant importance, his was a signal contribution. But the grip of clergy cannot be downplayed so most of the time, the rulers had to impose such taxes as a sop to the clergy that was (surprise!) overwhelmingly Barelwi and yes, that means it also included Sufis and Pirs. I am not sure but I remember reading that Akbar reimposed it for a few years before doing away with it forever.
    So, in summary, this discussion was not about secularism of Akbar, which cannot be doubted but the quibble was about the yardstick for its measurement.
    Thank you for your suggestion of Habib. Now would you be so kind as to tell me which of his works you are referring to, because the general way in which you clubbed all the rulers from pre-Akbar era into “Slave dynasty”, I am inclined to believe that you have not read it any detail.
    “When they make a hit movie on Baz Bahadur, let me know.”
    I must say this must gladden the hearts of our Bollywood enthusiasts that their films are taken so seriously. It’s safe to say that Gabbar Singh is the most influential historical character. Bravo!
    Also, pardon me for grating on your high artistic sensibilities honed as it is from living among intelligent south Indian chaste Hindus, but there was a hit movie in the 50s titled Rani Rupmati that was based on this story.
    “About Nandy, liberals are supporting him because no matter what his views, he does not deserve an FIR. you are again letting your biases interfere in inference. A man like Nandy would not have said this without research.”
    When did I say that he deserves an FIR? Am I biased for insisting that such empirical judgements with no basis in facts and figures are product of a fool and not an nuanced intellectual as Nandy is made out to be? This kind of logic is surreal! I am not surprised that such “scholars” find support from people like you. Here is an excellent rebuttal written by none other than his acolyte, Shuddhabrata Sengupta:
    Some relevant quotes:
    “First of all, such statements are of extremely dubious empirical value. They reflect the prejudice of the speakers and the spoken to more than they mirror facts on the ground. Secondly, even if they were to contain a modicum of truth—‘yes, some of those caught for corruption have been Dalits, yes, some of those found guilty of terrorism are Muslim, yes, some of those who were early carriers of the HIV were gay, and yes, some of the leading plutocrats are Jewish and some of those involved in right wing Hindu fascism are Marathi speaking Brahmins’ stating them in bald terms necessarily involves the assertion of a falsehood, simply because there are always more counter factual instances that disprove each of the above assertions. For each X that is why Y ( here, for X, read an identity category—Dalit, Muslim, Gay, Jew, Brahmin etc. and for Y read an attribute—corrupt, terrorist, disease carrier, plutocrat, fanatic), there are way too many Xs that are also not Y for any correlation between X and Y to be meaningful. In fact no statements of this kind, or pretences to facticity of this nature actually tell us anything valuable about corruption, terrorism, AIDS, finance capital, or Hindutva, or for that matter, about Dalits, Muslims, Jews, Gays or Brahmins.”
    And more importantly:
    “They reflect instead a habit of inexactitude and imprecision that is indulged in Indian intellectual life, based on the easy anecdote, idle prejudice and plain statistical dissimulation, and deployed, casually, in passing as the currency of opinion, in may I add, largely male homosocial gatherings, where no one actually challenges anyone else. It reflects the sad fact that the mainstream of Indian intellectual life has not yet learnt to think beyond, below or besides identity based categories.”
    Does this ring a bell?
    And another devastating critique by S. Anand:
    “And Bengal is one of the least corrupt states. UP Bihar on the other hand are the worst.”
    Here is a relevant article that was found by a simple google search. Please do have a look at Table 1 in that article.
    “The State-level variations are brought out with the help of an index constructed using data from 4 five year periods – 1990-95, 1996-00, 2001-05, and 2006-10.6 In the last few years, Bihar and Gujarat score much above the other States.(Table 1)”
    According to that article, West Bengal is at the bottom of the heap.
    If this is the kind of lazy study you are used to, you are gonna have a hard time in graduate school, especially if you are planning to go for a PhD. It’s good to read more and talk less.

  2. kaalchakra United States Google Chrome Windows says:

    BTW, RHR, speaking of ‘wahabism’ here is something that might interest you (obviously, since unfortunately or fortunately you will need to deal with these issues far more than I have to).

    Did you know that this lets-see-if-we-can-blame-wahabism-for-whatever-we-don’t-understand-or-don’t-wish-to-acknowledge strategy (which I mistakenly imagined was a recent fetish of luckless liberals) goes back to at least 1857?! Seemingly, the British and their stooges were blaming WAHABISM to explain away the violence of 1857!!

    Verily, we move very little, and learn even less than little.

  3. Chote Miyan United States Safari Mac OS says:

    I do accept that I have sometimes taken the recourse of parochial judgements. In my defense, I have always started with a fair position. As you have seen, there have been bigots of all kinds but when a barely cloaked chauvinism with little basis in fact is peddled by supposedly educated people then it needs to be forcefully countered. That’s all. Whether you post my comments is entirely up to you. I may be guilty of a lot of things but I have been, on the whole, fair and rarely spoken without backing up my statements with facts and figures.

  4. RHR United States Google Chrome Windows says:


    My comment was not for you alone but all three of you including Kaal and HP..

    Of course I will always post your comments. You are one of the most intelligent commentators at PTH

  5. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    Unfortunately some catch all terms have become “explanations” for everything….and wahabism is one of them. We sacrify credibility just to safely appear “liberal”

    In Pakistan Zia ul Haq has also become source of literlly everything bad and people assume that before 1977, Pakistan was a very “liberal” society which was converted by Zia into today’s Pakistan..

  6. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:


    I thought you would understand beside sense of humour,what I wrote about the milky way comparison with TNT. the T standing for a theory. There are words for theories which are not fully understood, become occasionaly facts which cannot be fully undertood, such as non-communal, non-entity and so on. One can not add further weak and non authentic terms to clarify them.

    Wahabism is one of those terms! It is a meaningless attribution to Mr Wahab and is a worthless except for those who want to insrumntalise it.

    The term TNT can also mean the notorious “Divide and rule” politicsof the angl saxons and toay the neo-cons and zionists. TNT is a standard term today for the Palestinian land; whereas ‘Islamism’ and the nickname ‘Islamists’ are the 21st century terms intended to replace ‘wahabism’ and ‘salafism’ etc. etc.

    Rex Minor

  7. Bin Ismail Pakistan Google Chrome Windows says:

    @ Romain (February 7, 2013 at 6:55 am)

    TNT was thought of as a solution and as such it didnt turn out to be the solution. In that sense, the solution of 1971 disproved TNT and Jinnah’s demand for TNT.

    I’m not sure whether 1971 disproves the Two Nation Theory. This inference, to me, appears somewhat of a grey area. What I can contend, with relatively greater confidence, is that marginalisation does lead to dissent.

  8. Kashif United States Safari Mac OS says:

    @ Romain (February 7, 2013 at 6:55 am)
    //…TNT was thought of as a solution and as such it didnt turn out to be the solution. In that sense, the solution of 1971 disproved TNT and Jinnah’s demand for TNT…//
    In my opinion, 1971 does not at all disprove the TNT. The reason is that Bangladesh, inspite of its separation from Pakistan, continues to be a sovereign Muslim-majority country within the Subcontinent. The sovereignty of this Muslim-majority region of the Subcontinent is what continues to make Bangladesh a proof of the continuity of the TNT, in the Subcontinental landscape.

  9. BAK United Kingdom Internet Explorer Windows says:

    According to Jinnah’s vision of “Pakistan”, as expressed by him in his remarkable 11th August 1947 speech, Pakistan was meant to be the following:

    1. A modern Muslim-majority state

    2. A Secular state

    3. A country run on the principles of Equality, Justice and Fairplay

    Between today’s Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is Bangladesh that fulfills the above description. Pakistan needs to catch up.

  10. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Rex, I did get that, but I for once wanted to appreciate as aspect of your conributions that people normally don’t comment upon :) .

    Yes, to hear someone babbling (and I use that word consciously) about how ‘wahabis’ and ‘mullahs’ or as RHR said, Zia-ul-Haq in case of Pakistan, are sources of all problems is to be almost certain that one is speaking to a clueless person.


    NC and HP

    Here is the point that kashif, BI, RHR, and I are trying to make:

    The minority of 10% Hindus living satisfied lives in Bangladesh DOES NOT disprove TNT at all.

    On the contrary, it could be argued that that means TNT was the only correct solution to the problem of Hindu-Muslim coexistence.

    We appear to be going round in circles over an issue that seems very straightforward. We are missing something. :(

  11. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:


    Over the last couple of days, trying to familiarize myself with the history of Bengali Muslims, this is my tentative understanding – a further strengthening of a view of Bengali TNT being the clearest and most decisive.

    Bengali Muslims seem to have led everyone else (or been at the forefront) in developing, refining, and popularizing TNT.

    Here is the reason why TNT succeeded so well in Bangladesh, while it failed in Pakistan. In Pakistan, while it existed in practice, its awareness and appreciation came very late, it was the handiwork of a few. Jinnah was anything but a social thinker, or an articulator of clear social messages.

    In Bengal, TNT was a MASS MUSLIM MOVEMENT, with a history of over half a century before 1947. Bengali Muslim leaders had mastered TNT, breathed and acted upon it. Not so in the case of Pakistan.

    That Bengali Hindus were and remained determinedly in the dark about it, or in some cases, in denial of it, merely provides strength to the basic argument of TNT – that Hindus and Muslims, in groups if not individually, are fundamentally different.

  12. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    By Pakistan, I meant, obviously, the ‘West Pakistan’ area.

  13. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Hope for Pakistan

    As a well-wisher of Pakistan, here’s wishing that Pakistan is able to implement TNT as Bangladesh has been able to.

    Were I a Pakistani liberal, this is the argument I would make to Pakistanis – an argument that will make sense to the masses, whose cooperation is the ONLY way forward.

    Dear Muslim brothers and sisters, we are glad and grateful to Allah that He helped us get rid of Hindus. The ones who remain here, with the Grace of God, can never enslave and oppress us, as they had always done. The brahmin and the bania have been beaten here, as Bangladeshis have beaten what they call Kababs.

    Now, let us remain vigilant that these Hindus never raise their heads again, but in the meanwhile, so long as Islam is not threatened by them, we should treat them, and other minorities, with some kindness and judicial equality. Let us be generous in victory. Let us be good Muslims, and not be said that Islam is mean to its minorities.


    Words can be adapted to suit the occasion, but something to that effect – a clarification and validification of TNT – is the only liberal message (and it is liberal) that will sell, and sell quickly, at the mass level in Pakistan.

  14. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Bengali “Kabab” – Kaysathas, brahmins, baidyas, the historical oppressors of Muslims in Bengal.

  15. Zainulabideen United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    One simply can’t help noticing the role of Maudoodiism in the breaking of Pakistan in 1971. We should also recall that Jamaat-e-Islami, earlier on, before and around Independence, had fiercely opposed both the creation of Pakistan and Jinnah himself. Al Badr and Al Shams were two militant outfits of the Jamaat-e-Islami. Its recruits were mostly madrassa students, under training to become militant mullahs. These two outfits committed great atrocities during the 1971 episode. It should also be noted that Maudoodiism in the subcontinent is just another version of Saudi Wahhabism.

  16. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:


    That is silly. Pakistan was broken by West Pakistan’s racist bigotry and contempt for Bengalis in general. It was also broken that Jinnah himself did not understand TNT as clearly as Bengali Muslims did – that implementation of TNT did NOT require Urdu.

    JI, seeing themselves as Muslims, first and last, tried to be a vehicle for West Bengali domination, but they did not play a primary role.

  17. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    For someone who actually calls himself a “Pakistani Indian”, I find it ironical that I am defending the validity of an idea which I have never liked….

    But my lack of likeness does not disapprove the idea…

    Ideas in social sciences particularly those which make a political statement and demand some sort of political action are proven through their mass scale acceptance and NOT by what I think..

    TNT unfortunately has credibility…..simply because when you throw democracy ( which essentially is a number game) in, then it has mass scale acceptance..

    OK NC, HP , Romain and all others…

    Lets take a plebsite..

    Forget Bangladesh…

    If we hold a referundam in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh about a simple question that should Pakistan and India and Bangladesh become one country??

    We all know the answer……

    If the answer is YES then TNT would go out of the window

    As a formal student of political science….It is the ACTUAL evidence which is needed here….

    I hate myself for saying it….but TNT in subcontent context holds…

    My dislike for TNT, or my pride in my Indian identity, does not negate TNT…



  18. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    And yes

    Kaal was right

    I am more of an Indian…

    But sorry, TNT’s validity is not proven through what i want….

  19. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    @ Kaal

    “That is silly. Pakistan was broken by West Pakistan’s racist bigotry and contempt for Bengalis in general. It was also broken that Jinnah himself did not understand TNT as clearly as Bengali Muslims did – that implementation of TNT did NOT require Urdu.

    JI, seeing themselves as Muslims, first and last, tried to be a vehicle for West Bengali domination, but they did not play a primary role.”

    You see that is why I call Kaal brilliant despite disagreeing with him INTENSELY over certain things ( Ahmedis in particular)and other things also..

    Truth for me has never been what I like…..

    Acceptance of TNT as an effective idea was extremely hard for me….but frankly it is validated not only by what pakistan does but also by what parties like BJP in India do…by what RSS does…

    TNT is also validated ( rather ironically) when Indians start comparing Pakistan with shining India….

    That comparison itself lends support to TNT……


    Give me evidence….

    And frankly as an indian….I will lap on to it…

  20. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    @ Kashif


    Very pertinent points..



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

    “If we hold a referundam in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh about a simple question that should Pakistan and India and Bangladesh become one country??”
    KC gave a response to that before in his own inimitable way. After the goat is cut into three pieces, it is very difficult/impossible to stitch together the head the body and the tail and infuse life in it. This is why I said earlier that Bangladesh rejoining India is a wild proposition. Such things do not happen. Once a separate nationalism develops (and Bangaladeshi nationalism developed in the period 1947-1971 itself, reasons why they went to war with West Pakistan) nation states do not merge back. It would be impossible for the Bangladeshi leaders, even if they wanted to, to convert the already well entrenched Bangladeshi nationalism into an Indian nationalism. As history shows, the maximum that happens in such situations, is some sort of European Union like formation, which can certainly happen between Bangladesh and India in the long run, once the remaining minor hostilities and disputes are ironed out. Had East and West Bengals been independent entities by themselves, like the former West and East Germany, the question of them rejoining may have been practical, but that is not the situation with EB and WB.
    After the partition riots, millions of homeless, and decades of discord, squabbling, and outright war the question of asking the people of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh whether or not they want to rejoin and a taking a negative response to that as some sort of validation of TNT is hardly the right way to analyze TNT. I know this is how most Pakistanis view it, especially the question of Bangladesh not rejoining India, as Bin Ismail, Kashif, Syed etc are putting it, including yourself and KC for some strange reason, as some sort of ex posto facto validation. But I think the most you can ask for is a European Union like formation not outright rejoining.
    One more point, Jinnah’s Aug. 11 speech was not TNT, that was the repudiation of TNT , once his political goals were met. A sample of TNT speech was what I quoted before, delivered in the famous Lahore Conference, and which clearly stated that Hindus and Muslims could not co-exist with one as a majority and the other as a minority. Bangladesh has proved that wrong since 1971, I am sure it would have proved that wrong even with a 22% Hindu population had it been the maker of its own destiny since 1947.

  22. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    I am fully aware of the actual difficulties in reunion…of course once u cut a goat then it can not be “reunited”..

    But opinions and sentiments are not goats….

    I am just asking about a sentiment….of course practically it is difficult…but do they even harbor a desire..

    You see when hindu rightwingers boast that how well india has performed without Pakistan…do u see the irony here..

    anyways….for me..this is difficult……I am a rajput for thousands of years…..a muslims for hundreds of years …..and a pakistani for just a few decades..

    Sorry..i do not like it….

    BUT contrary evidence is so weak….

    I wish it was stronger…

    As a social scientist, at times you have to accept evidence which is NOT according to your liking..

    Pakistan, if I was alive in 1946, I would have in all probability not supported it…

    But Pakistan is a reality..born out of TNT…..which contiues to survive and will continue to survive UNLESS majority of those in PRESENT DAY INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH, decide to rol it back..or at least DESIRE to roll it back ( come on mere desire is not suject to pragmatic difficulties)



  23. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    If only Hindus could see the truth of Islam and convert there will not be any need for TNT.

  24. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    If Hindus keep clinging to the pagan lies than there is no alternative but another partition. Kashmir and a part of north India connecting east and west Pakistan should be given to Muslims and Hindus should take the central and south India.

    Complete separation between Muslims and kuffar is the only solution to restore peace in the sub-continent.

  25. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    contribute positively if you can on which is a difficult topic..( for me personally)

    rather than coming up with your typical rants..( which you always utter while carefully hiding your real ID!!!)


  26. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    learn to say words beyond kuffar….and learn to narticulate ur argument..

    once u said that deep down we agree..

    may be WE do agree..but at least learn to articulate yourself..


    wink wink,,

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

    You refer to the Hindu rightwingers, well, they were/are believers in TNT, as KC here will gladly testify. Among all the Indian leaders, it was Savarkar who understood Jinnah’s demands (There is a famous speech by him that I may reproduce later). That is the irony of it all.
    There is no question of TNT’s relevance to Pakistan. TNT gave them a country, about which their whole nationalism is developed, discarding it entirely for them amounts to throwing the baby away with the bathwater. This is why we see an attempt by BI, Kashif. etc to even include Jinnah’s Aug. 11 speech within TNT. Which looks amusing from the outside, after all, if “Hindus would cease to be Hindus, Muslims would cease to be Muslims, in the political sense…” etc, then which separate nations are we talking about? But TNT, in the sense it was propounded all along starting with the Lahore Conference, and before the Aug. 11 speech, that Hindus and Muslim cannot co-exist as equal citizens in the same state, is irrelevant and harmful for both India and Bangladesh.
    This is not to say that the “Hindu rightwingers” do not agree with it, they do. They would like even the remaining Muslims in India to migrate to Pakistan or Bangladesh. But most Indians and most Bangladehsis do not see it that way. That is the crux of the invalidation of TNT in these countries. Actually, for looking for the evidence of validation or not of TNT in the sub-continent, you should not look into the external relations between India Pakistan and Bangladesh (once the die is cast it usually stays), but the relations and dynamics among the various communities within each country separately. Even that is not free of the external influences (for instance Indian Muslims often bear the burnt of the existence and hostilities with Pakistan) but that is a better indicator of the validation of TNT than cross national relationships. On this more reliable indicator Bangladesh has proven the failure of TNT. This is also the point Ppaktea and Romain made some time ago.

  28. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    What is it that you don’t agree with? Let me break it into pieces for easier understanding and tell me which statement you disagree with –

    1. Hindu are kuffar as Allah states in Quran.
    2. Hindus follow pagan rituals and lies which is haram.
    3. Some Hindus embraced the truth of Islam.
    4. Other Hindus rejected the truth if Islam.
    5. If all Hindus had embraced the truth of Islam, then entire sub-continent will be Muslims.
    6. In that case there will be no TNT.
    7. But some Hindus will always reject Islam and so TNT is needed.
    8. So we need complete separation of kuffar from Muslims.

  29. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    What is wrong with kuffar? Kuffar is the basis for TNT. Allah has made me kuffar and he has made you Muslim. Lets not make kuffar a dirty word.

  30. Zainulabideen United States Mozilla Firefox Ubuntu Linux says:

    @ Kaalchakra (February 7, 2013 at 8:15 pm)
    I can sense a soft corner for Jamaat-e-Islami here. Don’t worry. Even if you are a committed Jamatia, I respect your entitlement to your opinion. The mention of the Al Badr and Al Shams wings of Jamaat-e-Islami seems to have caused some unwarranted distress here. Regrets.

  31. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    since u have no intentions of coming out of your lunacy therefore NO comments…

    Keet on spewing whatever u r..

  32. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    Our fundamentil difference is that you think that TNT meant Muslims and Hindus could not simply live together and I think that Muslims wanted a seperate state to avoid hindu majority…

    since we dont agree on our basic premise theerefore we will eventually not agree…despite the fact that in essence BOTH of us do not endorse or support TNT!!!!!

  33. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:


    For once Tell me what’s wrong with what I said – or else keep articulating.

  34. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    as I said do what ever u like to..

    it is pointless…to argue with you..

    keep on these rants abt kuffar islam blah blah..
    are these terms worthy of any intellectual debate???

    these merely show ur deep seated bigotry, which you hurl under the anonymity of internet..

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

    “Our fundamentil difference is that you think that TNT meant Muslims and Hindus could not simply live together and I think that Muslims wanted a seperate state to avoid hindu majority…”
    Yes, that is the difference. But what you are referring as TNT was the political goal behind putting forth such a theory , what I am referring as TNT is the actual “theory” itself, as it appears in that speech by Jinnah (and many others) that you have no comments on. The theory, which was a political tool, said Hindus and Muslims could not co-exist as equal citizens of the same state due to differences in religion, culture, etc. The actual political goal of Jinnah may have been different, as is evidenced by the Aug. 11 speech, but that was not the theory itself.

  36. tajender United Arab Emirates Internet Explorer Windows says:

    india suffers eternally in the hands of the troika of Marvadi’s,
    Gujju’s & Brahmins. The Big three have made India suffocate &
    suffer by their unethical ways throughout the history. Put together they
    add up to 8 to 9% of Indian population and hold more than 90% of Indian
    money, power and other resources. Socially, Educationally, Economically
    they have always been very powerful & superior to the remaining
    masses of India. Indian Economy is in the hands of Marvadi’s. They hold
    most of the Indian businesses. It is surprising to see only one
    community flourish in businesses, generations after generations. These
    people do not eat mutton but suck the blood out of people. They have
    mistaken cheating & manipulations for entrepreneurship. Non-marvadi
    Indian can succeed in business outside India but not in India. Sabeer
    Bhatia and others in Silicon
    Valley are great examples. Non-marvadi Indian can succeed in Indian
    Business with Non-Indian clientele. Infosys & other big & small
    software companies are live examples. However, a Non-Marvadi cannot
    succeed in Indian business Environment whereas a Marvadi can easily
    succeed with their competence in manipulatuions and machinations without
    really having the real competence, technical or otherwise. Right from
    adultering milk & other food items in a grocery shop, duping
    customers with non-standard items for branded items, to the big
    industrialists evading taxes, a Marwadi is involved everywhere in
    cheating this Nation.
    They have mastered the
    trick of greasing palms of ever greedy politicians & bureaucrats to
    ensure the unethical & illegal businesses & methods are ignored
    by the people in Power. Business are shared within their community
    irrespective of cost and quality to ensure firm hold on business &
    economy with the Marvadi’s. Every attempt is made to kill the
    entrepreneurship from other communities. Businesses given to
    Non-marvadi’s will suffer Non-payment OR late payments to the point of
    closure of the others business. Employees in Marvadi firms are treated
    like slaves. The most qualified, intelligent and effective of the
    Employees have to work under low educated marvadi, appointed by the
    owner, as their boss, who keeps on learning from them and bossing over
    them at the same time, without giving exposure, value addition, or
    avenue to move ahead in the company. Once a person enters a Marvadi
    company, his learning stops and has to remain clerk forever, even if he
    is a Professional. With no addition in knowledge, he cannot venture
    outside the company and has to live a life of stagnated pond. Marvadi’s
    are destroying the intelligent and educated middle class just because
    this class is entrapped in home loans and other such loans. Earlier they
    cheated people by lending money at exorbitant interests and grabbed
    farming lands & other properties worth crores of rupees. A parallel
    economy with black money is run by the same community
    The unethical ways of Marvadi’s are
    destroying people and the Nation. Gujju’s are aptly represented by
    people like Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh. Recent killings of innocent
    men, women & children from minorities can give a peep into the minds
    of Gujju’s where they are in majority. The same Gujju’s have driven out
    Maharashtrians from Mumbai to the far outskirts of Mumbai. Mumbai has
    been grabbed by Gujju’s. It is only the Parsi’s who do business in India
    very ethically and with a lot of social commitment & ecological
    responsibility. They have tremendous respect from every Indian.

    blocked the education for others ensuring no competition. Brahmins have
    hold on Educational Institutions, Software companies, administrative
    jobs in Govt. & Lucrative posts in Private companies. Once a Brahmin
    enters an Organistaion, he slowly makes it the Brahmin Organisation, by
    employing everyone from his own
    caste. Where are others? They are peons, clerks, vegetable vendors,
    street cleaners, farm labourers, construction labourers, low level
    workers in factories and doing rest of the menial jobs. The suppression
    of masses continues in one form or the other.

    These three
    communities are the ardent supporters of BJP & the RSS. They are
    blinded by their self interests, least bothered about the Nation.
    Indulging in the superiority on Indian masses forever, they have been
    curse to the Indian masses.

    The new
    found mantra of Hindutva was a master stroke to deflect the attention
    of masses from the real issue of disparity & in equality to the
    non-issue of religion. Pitting one religion against another OR one caste
    against another are their strategic moves. It is indeed barbaric to
    fight each other just because the other is born in different religion or
    different caste. But that serves the purpose of these communities.
    Indian economy, businesses and education is in their hands. The masses
    should realise the intentions of the saffronites whose real masters are
    in this troika and instead of indulging in barbaric fights we should
    make every effort to uplift the masses to dizzying heights to be equal
    if not more equal to this troika, who have inflicted the greatest of
    injuries to the masses and this Nation

  37. Milestogo United States Safari iPhone says:

    Without Islam and kuffar, there won’t be any TNT. Kuffar and Islam are the foundation of TNT and that’s where the debate should start.

    Give it few years – you will again agree with me – you always catch up.

  38. Rex Minor Germany Google Chrome Windows says:

    What a travesty, Cut a goat in three which is the sort of example King Soloman used in biblical times and today is not even used among the European peasants. European union like formation, what a lot of crap one reads from the so called PTH intellectuals bloggersfrom the Asian subcontinent, it is sometimes even worst on ET, which runs upto 24 hrs late.

    Dr Manmohan Singh once said the right words to a nincompup Pakistan leader and I quote something along the line,” we cannot change the borders but make(render) them meaningless”.

    This is the exact concept of the European Union, to make one people from the 27 countries, all being Europeans and without changing the boundries! This is the devolution process and is being followed, slavaks separating from the Checks but remaining as equals and members of the European Union. We are paying taxes to support the weaker members of the Union; we are developing European agriculture by subsidising from the European budget and so on. No one foresees a United States of Europe with an afro. European sitting as the President of Europe but we do have a European Commission, whose task is of coordination, a load of beaurocrats with symbolic titiles and even the European parliament whose members are elected in individual countries to represent them in the European parliament. They legislate Europen laws and regulations which are binding for all member states. This process shall cntinue until the integration of all indepenent Nations is complete. Even within the German republic, we have indepenent Nations in their own states, all unitedly called Germans having German language as their common language by an historical coincidence but spoken with different dialects, each a language on its own. The federal republic system works on the Ausgleich among the provinces, a sort of compensation or balance the richer and the less richer and relatively poorer States, as a means of solidarity. This is now being considered and will eventualy have to be extended to all 27 European independent Nations. The Union among the independent Nations is a long term process and must have the prerequisites of compassion and solidarity of the haves with the have nots. Mr Jinnah Pakistan, the former occupied territory of India by the Brits., despite having the Islamic background failed miserably to unfold the vision of solidarity towards the less richer provinces including Bengal the so called East Pakistan after partition, and has continued more or less todate leavin the less sourceful among the remaining Nations within its boundry to struggle on their own.

    Rex Minor

  39. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:


    Political slogans in the heat of election compaigns are not theories..
    Jinnah may have said it. to extract political milage but that is not a theorymeans

    btw the fact that hindus and muslims had actually lived for thousands of years together before 1930s and the fact that jinnah was intially all for “unity” means that he did not imply that.

    TNT was born out of fear of democratic majority when electoral landscape began to emerge..

    It does not mean that hindus and muslims can not live together.

    anyways since we disagree on this basic premise, we will end up disagree

  40. RHR United States Internet Explorer Windows says:

    we will disagree despite being ideologically in agreement !!!

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

    I fully agree with you that Jinnah did not mean it. Hence the Aug. 11 speech (Hindus will cease to be Hindus, Muslims would cease to be Muslims…).

  42. kaalchakra United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:


    Jamaat-e-Islami does some great work. If you misrepresent them or their role I will have a soft corner for them.


    NC, at the risk of losing ANY soft corner any Pakistani may have nursed for me, let me commit the mother of all blasphemies: Jinnah wouldn’t know a theory if it hit him in the face. TNT can only be grasped as the set of self-consistent and durable ideas that emerges from all his actions and words, and from how it was understood by most of his ‘followers’.

    I pray no nationalist Pakistani friend ever reads that. :)

  43. idli nehaari United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Does it matter now?

    All the three nations are poor. Everywhere you find people killed in the name of economy or religion. Somewhere you feel safe for some reason, somewhere you do not.

    crux of the matter is humanity should be spread, not religion.

  44. MilesToGo United States Safari Mac OS says:


    btw I agree with you that Bangladesh does not disapprove TNT. It only proves that Bengali Muslims and Punjabi Muslims are two different nations.

  45. heavy_petting United States Mozilla Firefox Windows says:

    Chota Miyan
    “The State-level variations are brought out with the help of an index constructed using data from 4 five year periods – 1990-95, 1996-00, 2001-05, and 2006-10.6 In the last few years, Bihar and Gujarat score much above the other States.(Table 1)”
    According to that article, West Bengal is at the bottom of the heap.
    If this is the kind of lazy study you are used to, you are gonna have a hard time in graduate school, especially if you are planning to go for a PhD. It’s good to read more and talk less.”
    Hey, Miyan, stop the nutty copy-paste from the web. By this standard you not FG seem to have a bleak future. That Debroy index is for increase in anti-corruption efforts. Only a fool will equate that with corruption itself. WB Kerala obviously score lower than Bihar by that index. Here’s another study on the statewide corruption distribution: Bihar is the most corrupt state, three others are keeping it company for “alarmingly corrupt”. See for yourself where your favorite WB is. Yes you guessed it, on the other extreme from Bihar. But Chota, why do you need surveys? How many Rs. 3000 crore animal fodder, Adarsh, mining, land, telecom, commonwealth scams have you heard recently from your favorite WB?

  46. MilesToGo United States Safari Mac OS says:


    You should be asking if Sikh Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis are two nation and why?

  47. Chote Miyan United States Safari Mac OS says:

    Again you jumped in like the proverbial minkey without a diligent thought process. You failed to notice the date of your article. It was 2008. The one I quoted was from 2012. I don’t do research in that area so I have to quote other people’s research. Anyways, thanks for reading the article at least. A start has to be made somewhere.

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>