The Two Nation Theory: Is it religion or culture that divides us?


For all our lives, we’ve been taught that the two-nation theory is based on the fact that there is a “Muslim nation” and a “Hindu nation” who could not exist together and thus needed two different homelands. But is this actually true? If it were, why did East Pakistan secede to become Bangladesh? At the same time, why does Jammu & Kashmir continue to aspire to join Pakistan? If this is true why do millions of Hindus still reside in Sindh? If this is true why do millions of Muslims still reside in India? Is it really a Muslim-Hindu divide or is it something deeper and complex?

To me, the two-nation theory is flawed – in the sense that it is too superficial and doesn’t explain the ground realities or history of our region. There are indeed two nations in the subcontinent, but these two nations are not Muslims and Hindus…rather they are Indus and Gangetic nations.

So what are the Indus and Gangetic nations you ask? These are groups of people (cultures and ethnic groups), which developed over a period of 5000 years along the Indus and Ganges rivers respectively. The Indus civilization is among the oldest and largest in the ancient world, and often compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt. The civilization along the Ganges however never really developed into an advanced society, compared to their Indus counterparts, but nonetheless formed a separate culture. The cultures that formed along these two rivers essentially created the two-nation theory…this was long before there was any Hinduism and Islam…and long before any Hindu king or Mughul emperor ruled South Asia. The reality is the two-nation theory is based on culture and not religion. Remove Islam and Hinduism from the subcontinent and guess what would happen? You would still have two nations!

Think about it for a second. Have you ever wondered how odd certain regions of India are such as the Rann of Kutch (in Gujarat), Thar desert (in Rajasthan) and Indian Punjab? When you see the average person from these regions, they resemble and behave more like Pakistanis than they do the average Indian. The reason is because these regions (Kutch, Thar and Indian Punjab) were traditionally bound to the Indus river and developed an Indus culture, similar to those found in Sindh and Punjab today. Rann of Kutch is more culturally and historically related to Tharparkar region of Sindh than Gujarat. Similarly, the Thar desert region of Rajasthan is more culturally and historically related to Cholistan region of lower Punjab and upper Sindh than Rajasthan.

On the flip side, haven’t you noticed how odd East Bengal (East Pakistan) looked in Pakistan from 1947 to 1971? East Pakistan was an oddity because when we saw the average Bengali, they behaved and resembled more like Indians than the average Pakistani. They looked different, spoke and wrote a completely different language and by in large ate different food. The reason is again based on the river cultures. Bengal is a Gangetic nation, not an Indus nation, and it was this split in culture (Indus vs Gangetic) that ultimately led to the conflict of interest between East and West Pakistan and ultimately led to the creation of Bangladesh. This then also explains why Jammu & Kashmir continues to have a love affair with Pakistan. Again, since Kashmir is an Indus nation, they show more affinity towards their Indus cousins in Pakistan.

So where did religion come into the two-nation theory? There’s two important factors we need to address:

The 1st factor was the initial contact with Islam. After the creation of the Indus and Gangetic river cultures, both regions were influenced by very different factors. Indus nations were more influenced by Turkic, Persian and Central Asian empires as compared to Gangetic nations. This then explains why a majority of the Indus nations would eventually convert to Islam and over time become majority Muslim regions. The Gangetic nations were spared for the most part during the early spread of Islam and hence Hinduism flourished into those nations. So on the surface and to the untrained eye, it may look as if Muslims and Hindus are two different nations, but that’s a false conclusion to make. Underneath both these religions are two different cultural nations. You cannot tell the difference between a Sindhi Hindu and a Sindhi Muslim because they behave the same and speak the same language. Similarly, you cannot tell the difference between a Tamil Hindu and a Tamil Muslim for the same reasons. Furthermore, there are Hindus that live in Singapore, Myanmar, Guyana and even Southern India who differ from Hindus in North India by a great deal. The Hindu community in Pakistan for example (mainly centered in Sindh) do not behave anything close to what Hindus in North India behave. The same argument could be said about the Muslims. The Muslim communities of the Indus Valley that form Pakistan today differ greatly in culture and overall attitude from their Muslim counterparts in North India. In reality, the Muslims and Hindus of North India share a similar culture of intolerance and incivility. The problem isn’t actually Hindus vs Muslims…rather it’s just the inability of North Indians to behave in a civilized manner. What happens in North India should not be an excuse to behave the same in Pakistan. Many hardliners use the events in North India to justify atrocities against our Hindu community, and it should be condemned at all costs. The Hindus of Sindh are more closely related to us as Pakistanis than North Indian Muslims…both genetically and culturally!

The 2nd and most important factor is the Muslim League’s usage of the religion card. The Muslim League used rising Muslim nationalism to gain support for Pakistan…I would compare it to Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto and campaign where a “brand” was sold to the people. But the concept for this country is not what you have been made to believe (I blame Zia ul Haq). Pakistanis have horribly misunderstood the true concept and creation of the Muslim League. This political party was created for 3 main purposes. The first was to build bridges between the Muslim community and British government, which had severely been dented during the 1857 War of Independence. The second was to fight for civil rights of Muslims, which were denied to them under the British-Brahmin leadership of the British Indian Empire (Raj) after 1857. The last was to forge good relationships with non-Muslim communities in the British Raj, particularly with the Hindu majority. In the end, the Muslim League was left with no other option other than to support the creation of an independent majority Muslim country, where Muslims could live in freedom. Nowhere did the Muslim League (and Jinnah for that matter) advocate an Islamic country. They simply wanted a piece of territory where Muslims under the British Raj would not be subjected to 2nd class citizen and be able to live in freedom. Now, who were these Muslims? Was the Muslim League talking about all Muslims in the world? Of course not, they were talking about the Muslim community in the British Raj…particularly those in the Northwest where they had a significant population and a unique culture…this again is boiling down to the Indus and Gangetic divide.

In the end, how does the “Two-Nation Theory” hold up when religion is the prime differentiating factor? It fails. But when you put culture into the equation, the theory makes more sense. Furthermore, to use the Two-Nation Theory now to defend Pakistan’s existence is even more futile. The movement for Pakistan achieved its objective in 1947. Now we need to move on. We don’t have a non-Muslim majority threatening to subjugate Muslims anymore so we cant use the two-nation theory for our internal challenges. Pakistan needs to celebrate its Indus culture and its multicultural society and truly form into a united union, rather than this “Islamic Republic” we’ve been forced fed which nobody really accepts.

This is why I believe the two-nation theory should be redefined to the four-nation theory: the four nations being Indus, Gangetic, Dravidian and Indochin to accurately represent the communities in the region.

Indus nations would include: Balochistan, Sindh, Rann of Kutch, Thar Desert, United Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & FATA, Gilgit-Baltistan and Jammu & Kashmir

Gangetic nations would include: West Bengal, Orrissa, Uttarakhand. Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh. Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and Bangladesh.Dravidian nations would include: Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka, Kerala, Goa, Tamil Nadu, Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Telangana.

The two nation theory essentially boils down to differences in overall genetic composition, religion, culture, rituals, linguistics, dress, diet, ethnicity, governance, history, civilization, race, complexion, geography, philosophy, script, cuisine, music, entertainment, sociopolitics and economics

Your theory is based on geography and ethnicity. But , two nation theory (movement)was actually started from Gangetic region and flourished there. Indus region was nothing to do with at the early stage. Actually it was the Muslim Elite who coined the two nation theory because they felt their status and existence in threat.

__________________
Nip the evil in the bud.

Then , it was the irony of the situation that the Muslims majority areas were splitted to Eastern and North Western parts of Subcontinent.Geographically and ethnically muslims were divided into Gangetic and Indus areas with higher density at the tail of both of these regions. So, the thing that could secured and guaranteed the very existence of the Elite of these majority areas was 'religion'. So, it was the band wagon used by the Muslim Elite as a platform (Muslim League).

__________________
Nip the evil in the bud.

This is a very interesting perspective as it looks at history from a cultural and anthropological lens. Aitzaz Ahsan argued something similar in his book "The Indus Saga and The Making of Pakistan". A must read for every Pakistani and Indian.

__________________
Gazing at nothingness, which is behind all things.

considerate!. but to me, this articles lacks some important questions while comparing northern areas of pakistan and india and while comparing nearby areas of indus ( indus civilization) ..... this aricle can raise so many questions in addition to what is questioned and answered in this piece.
1) why did the people of northern india not strive to be annexed with pakistan if they were culturally same? this is same as hindu did not leave pakistan at the of time of partition.

2) why does baloch liberation army in baluchistan want freedom despite having same cultural identity? this is same as matter of bengladesh...

to me this article itself is flawed.

Exactly, I was about to ask the same thing. As far as I know the pashtun belt of KPK is also out of the indus culture rather they are sort of Afghan Culture. On the other part, I am not sure but a friend once said me that Gilgitis are more like Mongols and they have some old cultural trends and fashions that got a shadow of Mongol culture. In short, mixing such things create less impression. Besides, I appreciate such written skills.

__________________
A Longing to Return to the Realm of the Soul

it would unjustifiably be wrong to take the two nation theory only on cultural perspective. to some extent, for the sake of argument, the cultural difference can be linked with the theory and derive some logical conclusion. we still find so many differences in living style of Hindus and muslims, differences in home dacorations, differences in mentality, differences in being vegetarian and none- vegetarian( if it is culture based not religion based).