Two Nation Theory: A discourse of the deaf

Ulhas Joglekar uvj at
Sat Sep 29 19:54:29 MDT 2001


04 November 2000 Saturday 07 Shaban 1421

A discourse of the deaf

By Irfan Husain

OF late, there has been much discussion of the Two-Nation Theory in the
national press. Politicians, especially those from the three smaller
provinces, have made critical noises about this principle that was the basis
for the partition of India.

Basically, the theory postulated that the Hindus and Muslims of the
subcontinent constituted two distinct nations and therefore needed separate
states to pursue their respective destinies. The problem with this vision
was that it treated the people of South Asia as two homogeneous groups of
Hindus and Muslims, making no allowances for the vast cultural, ethnic and
linguistic differences that contribute to the colourful and vibrant mosaic
that is the subcontinent.

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-National Theory is based.

And although millions of Muslims and Hindus migrated in both directions in
1947, millions of others chose to stay where they were. The fact that even
after partition, India continued to have a significant Muslim population
weakened the principle on which Pakistan had been created. This questionable
premise was further eroded by the separation of East Pakistan in 1971. We
now have three states in the subcontinent, each with roughly 150 million
Muslims. Detractors of the Two-Nation Theory point out that had India not
been partitioned, there would have been around 450 million Muslims living
there. Such a large population can hardly be termed a persecuted minority.

However, these are the ifs and buts of history. The bottom line is that for
good or bad, right or wrong, Pakistan came into being over half a century
ago, and need no longer justify its existence to India, the rest of the
world or to its own citizens. Over a period of time, a state acquires
legitimacy and a certain momentum just by virtue of its existence. It does
not have to explain time and again why it was created.

Unfortunately, our leaders and self-appointed ideologues have consistently
taken upon themselves the impossible and exceedingly boring task of
defending a defunct theory. To do so, they have gone through bizarre and
tortuous intellectual contortions that might have been amusing were it not
for the strains they have placed on the fabric of the Pakistani state. First
and foremost, the defenders of the so-called ideology of Pakistan have tried
to establish the geographically untenable position that we are part of the
Mid-East and not South Asia. To sustain this fiction, they have done their
wicked worst to purge our culture of subcontinental influences. Thus,
classical dancing is under a virtual official ban while theatre and music
exist on sufferance. Students are taught Arabic (badly) at an early age and
indoctrinated to despise everything India.

The other fiction that underpins this official doctrine is that history
began for Pakistan when Mohammad Bin Qasim landed on our shores and
conquered and converted much of Sindh. The flowering of the Gandhara
civilization and the magnificent earlier achievements of the Indus Valley
civilization are largely glossed over except in the tawdry publications we
produce for the benefit of the few foreign tourists who venture here.
Unfortunately, many of these attitudes are mirrored across the border in

These contortions have resulted in a major identity crisis that has robbed
at least two generations of their creativity: by cutting them off from their
real roots, our ideologues have produced a nation that is unsure of its
position in the region and the world. One reason why we are so full of doom
and gloom is that we are constantly subjected to long-winded and fatuous
explanations about why Pakistan came into being. It is almost as if we were
being constantly asked to prove our legitimacy at every step.

Instead of getting on with life, much of our energy and vitality have been
dissipated in this sterile and pointless debate: after all these years, what
does it matter why Pakistan was created? What matters is that it was
created, and we need to stop justifying its creation. Scores of
nation-states have come into being after 1947, and most of them do not feel
the compulsion to defend their existence. The world is not asking us to
produce a certificate of legitimacy; it only wants us to join the rest of
the human race and accept reality as it is.

Another distortion the Two-Nation Theory has produced is the compulsion to
define ourselves in terms of India: we have tried to show how different we
are from our neighbour at every turn. Inevitably, an Indian misfortune is
seen as our good fortune, and every Indian gain as our loss. This zero-sum
game is a debilitating exercise and has resulted in tunnel vision in which
our large neighbour has become our only horizon. Our internal and external
policies are largely aimed at somehow countering real and perceived Indian
threats and hegemonic designs.Any theory that seeks to promote separateness
denies our humanity and the ability of civilized people to live together
despite differences in colour, caste or creed. As somebody said recently,
"First we Muslims said we could not live with Hindus and created Pakistan;
then we said we could no longer live with Bengalis, and Bangladesh was the
result. Now Sunnis are saying they cannot live with Shias. Where will it all
stop?" Where indeed?

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the demand for Pakistan was a
bargaining position initially adopted by the Muslim League. Ultimately, it
was Congress obduracy more than Muslim League insistence that resulted in
the creation of Pakistan. Whatever the reality, it is certain that the
bloodletting that accompanied partition shook the founder of the new state
and probably caused the decades of suspicion and rancour that have marked
Indo-Pakistani relations ever since.

There has been a demand to try Altaf Hussain of the MQM for criticizing the
creation of Pakistan. This is the knee-jerk reaction of our ideologues who
have already inflicted so much damage in the past. It would be far better to
debate these issues openly, and if that is the consensus, lay to rest the
Two-Nation Theory. We no longer need defunct theories to justify the
creation and existence of Pakistan.

© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2000

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message

More information about the Marxism mailing list