I don't think the "Two-Nation Theory" as it is called, has ever been or would ever be a binding force to hold the Muslims of the subcontinent together. The striking instance I can turn to, to make my case is the breaking away of East Pakistan/ fall of Dacca, and now sequent secessionist movements in the rest of the provinces, the Baloch insurgency or otherwise being the quotable one, also separatist activism in Sindh,and campaigns for 'Pakhtunistan' with the increasing anti-Punjabi sentiment nourished in the smaller provinces.

On the whole, the entire idea of two nation theory upon which rested "The Pakistan Movement" is rendered flimsy by these movements/instances; if anything like 'two nation theory' really existed, why would we as a sovereign independent Islamic Republic, be still locked up in the quandary of quest for a "National Identity and National Integration"? Now that the White masters are back home, the Hindus, we perceieved as a potential threat to the religion and religious interests of ours, are no more, we are no longer living as a minority within a majority community, Material as well as Moral and Intellectual resources of production are readily at the disposal of our Muslim Elite and ruling junta, then why have we been a total fiasco to be integrated into one nation, having a single identity of "Pakistani", why is a country carved out purely on a religious basis, 'Areligious' with not an iota of islamic ideology to be found here ?

Likewise, the question also here props up: "Didn't the two nation theory prove a complete failure with the break-up of the East-Pakistan?"

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, one of the biggest critics of Pakistan Movement, having reflected upon this scheme, rejected it with a cogent word of oppostion, noting that the bone of contention then in the United India was not 'religion', but was the struggle amongst the competing classes of elites, industrialists, and feudal lords, for the control of monopoly of power and resources for the safeguard of their respective vested interests, and squarely this was reason which lay beneath the demands for a separate state, whose demand was made under the smokescreen of religion/Islam.

Honestly speaking, this view by Maulana Azad, corresponds 100 to present Pakistani society, divided sharply into the classes of haves and havenots with the industrial and land owning classes possessed entirely of the monopoly of political power, authority, and all resources.

Equally important is the question as to why at the time of their pinnacle of power when they were ruling the United India, the Muslims did not think of any two nation theory; wasn't there living two nations of the Hiindus and the Muslims then? Also, the Muslim brethren residing in the European and other Western countries as a microscopic minority, should also raise their concerns for a small but separate state of theirs in Europe/West to order their lives as per the Islamic teachings and to safeguard their religious and cultural interests if there is really a two nation theory!

All of these facts, as the matter of fact, provide a ground substential enough to controvert two nation theory or atleast vindicate our thesis, one that was propounded by Abul Kalam Azad, that 'the entire game was/ is of Economy'.

Regards
Farrukh Aziz Ansari.

Breaking away of Bangladesh is not the negation of two nation theory had it been negation of TNT then Bengladesh would have been merged into India. Did it? No! And as i write Bangladesh maintain it's separate muslim entity. Fall of Dacca was the failure of statesmanship, the people of east Pakistan were denied their rightful share so they revolted. Mind you during entire revolt Sheikh Mujeeb never negated TNT.

Same is the case with secessionists movements of Baluch or other ethnic groups because they have been denied their due share. These movements are similar to secessionists movements in india, Khalistan and Naxli movements are striking example in this regard


Yes we are still locked up in integrating our nation but that certainly is not the negation of TNT because soon after the independence we lost our charismatic leadership , at that time there was no national leader who could fill the void. Resultantly, some opportunists started regional politics and misguided masses on the basis of their ethnicity.

Had Nehru been dead in 1948 the condition of India would not have been different from Pakistan. Having said this the condition of India is still not better as it is yet to integrate into a nation , i have already quoted two examples of indian national disintegration ( Naxli and khalistan movements). Moreover elevating butcher of muslims to the Position of PM in fact strengthens TNT


Haha, what a joke! Is this even an argument? Why one would demand separate state at pinnacle of power? State is demanded under persecution. Only When muslims faced ruthless suppression and oppression then they had no other option left except to demand a separate homeland. Mind you ! we demanded a state for muslims not a muslim state!

Hindi urdu controversy, sub human treatment of muslims, annulment of partition of Bengal and nefarious congress ministries strengthened our notion of TNT.

Why would muslims demand separate states in west? They are certainly not ruled by congress ministries but muslims living in India should definitely demand separate homeland because the places of their worship are often attacked. The demolition of Babri Mosque is glaring example in this regard. Tell me can a muslim even own a bloody flat in Mumbai? No ! because RSS wouldn't allow it

iAlways remember! Pakistan is not a man made country, it is a God made country. It was created to protect muslim identity. It is based upon the blood of millions of people. It is a product of earth shaking idea. No power on earth can undo Pakistan because it is not a country it is a live revolution!!!

If it's not a man-made country, then who is this person staring at in my profile pic?
Every country is made by God. And everything that it contains, like, huge shopping malls, stock exchanges, universities, etc.

How can a single country manages to protect the identity of muslims who spread all across the globe?

Can't take this further anymore.. one question... Are you Al-Bakistani?

__________________
Left is Right

Your arguments suggest that you perceive Two-Nation theory quite differently than it should be reasonably perceived. "Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations with their separate identities. Therefore, the glaring differences preclude their peaceful coexistence in a demographic such as that present in the (prepartition) subcontinent."

It was mostly religion combined with the diverse socioeconomic factors of that time that resulted in the genesis and evolution of the TNT. Had Hindus not made their prejudice apparent and based their persecution and oppression solely on religious grounds, TNT would never have come into existence.

As for all the examples you are citing (secessionist movements), presence of prejudice and persecution can be argued in all of these to be the causative factor. But none of it is based on religion.

TNT never said that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations, and if Muslims get a separate state they would always live happily ever after. No ethnic, provincial or linguistic conflicts would ever arise among them and they would always be united. TNT is just limited to this: "Muslims and Hindus are two different nations, they cannot coexist in harmony in the circumstances prevailing in the Indian subcontinent (referring to the prepartition period)".

__________________
"Everything the light touches, is our kingdom."

No offense or anything but the example of "fall of dhaka" to negate TNT is one of the stupidest argument not only you but many people often give it. Two Nation Theory was based upon the idea that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations and it is very difficult for both of them to live together. Where did it say that all Muslims are bound to live in the same country? Even if East Pak got separated, it went on to be recognized as a Muslim country. This very fact strengthens TNT. Half the Bengal is still in India and had TNT not real, it would have been best option for East PAk to join the other half Bengal.
Similarly, the movements for separate Balochistan or KPK or Sindh are fed by the perception of social inequality (allegedly done by Punjab). Even if separated, these people want an independent Muslim country.

__________________
Somewhere Beyond Right and Wrong, There is a Garden. I'll meet you there :Rumi

Yeah! Jinnah is staring at your profile pic. You must be naive enough to believe that only one man created pakistan! I can understand your naivety as you are gripped in personality cult of Jinnah. Yeah that Jinnah who was confused enough that he could not envision the ideology of Pakistan. Best of luck with that cult!

Ok first you claimed that Pakistan was made by Jinah then you negated your own stance by saying Every country is God made coutry!

Seriously dude! you need to hold to your ground at least for 5 minutes so that you can be mature enough to raise your finger on someone's identity by branding him Al Bakistani

breaking of Bangladesh isn't the negation of TNT? according to theory muslims are separate nation then why they did not remained united with us? can a Arab live with us being a muslim? if according to theory muslims are separate nation then why all Arab countries are not living together?

__________________
Give Light,and the Darkness will Disappear of itself.
DESIDERIOUS ERASMUS

Already told you that fall of Dacca was failure of a statesmanship not TNT. It's like a family who is bonded by same blood ( TNT) but if one kid (Bengal) is consistently ignored then ultimately he will rebel and will leave the family. Does this mean that his blood (TNT) was not pure that is why he left the family ?

Why should he live here? What claim an Arab has on this land of pure? Was he born here? Were his ancestors sons of this soil?



According to TNT, muslims of sub continent are a separate nation not muslims of whole world as you suggest!

We need to understand what TNT states exactly: it states, ''Muslims and Hindus can't live together because of their inherent religious differences, forcing them live together would be a recipe of Hell''
The whole constitutional struggle and the associated developments are a proof to that.
Arguing that the TNT never existed citing Bangladesh as an example is like saying Islam is to be blamed for whatever the Muslims do or continue to do.
The purpose of TNT was to provide both the nations a separate territory so that they don't fight. Even after having a separate homeland, neither of the two nations have an iota of love for the other; imagine the consequences of living together.
As far as the secessionist elements are concerned: we should know that these elements pop up in many parts of the world because of lack of provision of due share in the resources of the state. It's like a brother not getting due share from his father's property and is forced to become violent finally to claim his share.

>>>means it is applicable in only in subcontinent case,then agreed. but many raise the question about the muslims living in India and Hindus living in PAKISTAN.

__________________
Give Light,and the Darkness will Disappear of itself.
DESIDERIOUS ERASMUS