Two-Nation Theory: Myths and Reality
What is the Two-nation Theory?
The Two-Nation Theory was one of the formulas used to find a solution for the peaceful dissolution of the vast but crumbling British Indian Empire in the 1940s. It suggested that the Hindus and Muslims of India were two separate nations based on their respective cultural markers, particularly their religious beliefs and practices. Hence, as per the principle of self-determination, they needed separate states.
Kindly note its following distinct features:
1. It was a time-specific formula relevant only during the period the Subcontinent was under British rule. Accordingly, it became irrelevant once its objective, namely Pakistan, was achieved on August 14, 1947 and rightly replaced by Pakistan's Ideology
2. It was a space-specific formula, only applicable to pre-Partition British India, with two conditions, namely, MAJORITY and CONTIGUITY. Thus, only those provinces and regions in the British Indian Empire were to form the new state of Pakistan where the Muslims were in majority and these were contiguous geographically
3. It took religion as the main but not exclusive marker of defining the nation, which needed its own separate geographical space where they were in majority, and in which they could govern their lives according to their distinct socio-cultural moorings and political bearings.
4. There was no forced transfer of populations envisaged in the Two-nation Theory. The founding fathers never stipulated the cross-migration of Hindus and Muslims to new countries.
5. There was no provision for treating minorities as second-class citizens in the new states
Some misconceptions about the Two-nation Theory?
Indian Muslims, particularly the leadership of the All India Muslim League, have been subjected to several allegations in this regard. Specifically, its opponents level the following allegations against the Two-Nation Theory;
- It was an offshoot of the British policy of Divide and Rule.
- Nation-states are not created on the basis of religion
- Muslim League and Muslim scholars propagated it
- It created a division of India
- The creation of Bangladesh nullified the Two-nation Theory
Let me explain them in detail
1. Was it a British Policy of Divide and Rule?
Asserting that British colonialists created this division between Hindus & Muslims is sheer naivete; whether they exploited it to perpetuate their rule is irrelevant if we keep in mind the objective conditions of post-1857 Subcontinent
Theories do not spring out of thin air; they are always based on hard-core ground realities. The Two Nations Theory was the theoretical construct of the objective conditions prevailing at the time. It just described the acute, centuries-old communalisation of Indian society, in which both Hindu nationalists and Muslim revivalists took an active part.
Pannikar has rightly stated that the introduction of Islam in India divided the Indian body politic and society vertically as its adherents failed to absorb themselves horizontally in the social milieu like the countless other creeds that preceded it
It was, thus, just a matter of time before these centuries-old socio-cultural, religious, and economic dissimilarities between two major communities gave rise to two distinct political ideologies, leading to the partition of the sub-continent into two independent states.
2. Religion cannot be the basis of nationhood.
This is the fiercest argument against the Two-nation Theory and, thus, needs a detailed examination. Benedict Anderson, in his 1983 book Imagined Communities, has comprehensively analyzed this issue.
According to Anderson, there is no fixed marker of a nation such as race, religion, language, etc., but rather a nation is a socially constructed community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of a group.
Thus, although a nation may consist of tens of millions of people, nearly all of whom will never personally know or even meet one another, nationalism allows each individual to think of themselves as a member of a singular community with a shared identity on any basis
K.K. Aziz has identified 13 such conditions, such as common group feelings, love for fellow nationals, common hostility to others, common territory, common morals, social-economic institutions or ideas, possession of some cultural characteristics, language, customs, religion, etc
Thus, there is no single marker of nationhood; If language could be the basis, then why is Canada one, and why are all Arab countries, which share everything, not a single entity? What happened to the Syria-Egypt Union (UAR)? Why did Ache get independence? Why did South Sudan separate? Any idea about Ireland?
Because, with few exceptions, most modern nation-states are artificial entities, multi-ethnic in composition, inheriting the borders drawn by the colonial masters. There was no set rule for their creation except for historical events or mutual understanding among colonising powers.
To succeed, every movement of this magnitude needs some sort of emotional underpinning to arouse the passions of the general public to ensure their maximum participation. Religion, race, and language have been common battle cries throughout history in this regard
Pakistan Movement, though couched in religious terminology, was basically a movement by downtrodden British Indian Muslims to safeguard their socioeconomic interests and fulfill their dreams of improving the quality of life in a country where they could live peacefully
To press for their demands, they used the term Two- nation Theory which provided them with a moral narrative and political justification for the geographical division of India based on the claims of the Muslims of India of being a separate nation, hence entitled to separate state
Jaswant Singh, in his remarkable book on the partition of the Subcontinent has admitted that the Pakistan Movement “was not an Islamic movement. It was simply for the political rights of a minority.” It was their last option, not the first choice, as is evident from the acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan by the Muslim League when the last effort was made by the British to leave a united India as their legacy.
4. It broke the geographical unity of the Sub-continent
India as a homogenous entity is a myth. India was never a country in the modern sense. All along, it was a Sub-Continent or at the very least, an empire, with lots of regions and nationalities living in this area for millennia.
Robert Kaplan believes that the present division of the Subcontinent has historical roots going back millennia. According to him, Pakistan is the inheritor of the Indus Valley Civilization, while India inherited the Ganges Valley Civilization.
Robert Kaplan also maintains that the present borders between these two states are in fact co-terminus with the boundaries of these two ancient civilizations. Thus, Pakistan came into existence as a result of the dissolution of British Indian Empire, not any country by the name of India
Indians should be thankful to Pakistan as its creation as an independent nation-state saved India from its eventual balkanization if the colonial rulers of the erstwhile British Indian Empire had left it as it was.
Just before the partition, Jinnah had endorsed the idea of a united, independent, and secular Bengal. The partition of Bengal along religious lines was forced by Nehru and Gandhi, who would not countenance an independent Bengal without safeguards for Hindus.
In other words, when Hindus were placed in a minority situation in a secular Bengal, Nehru and Gandhi wanted exactly what Jinnah had asked for Muslims in India. Nehru feared balkanization if Bengal got independence and preferred to have Bengal divided along religious lines.
And he was right; had there been no partition of India along religious lines, there would have been multiple partitions along ethnic, linguistic, c, and caste lines. There would be more than two dozen states in the Subcontinent today.
5. Has the creation of BD nullified the Two Nation Theory?
The separation of former East Pakistan from its western wing and its coming into existence as an independent state had multiple causes, i.e., historical baggage, political governance, economic mismanagement, etc. Don’t blame the Two- Nation Theory
I have discussed the causes of the fall of Dhaka in detail here
https://medium.com/@shahidhraja/breakup-of-united-pakistan-in-1971-lessons-learnt-62b6e5eb9a4f…
In fact, Bangladesh owes its present existence to this very Two-nation theory, which started from the Partition of Bengal, resulted in the partition of the Subcontinent, and ultimately to its own creation
Even if the new state of Bangladesh had merged with India soon after it got separated from Pakistan, which it did not, it could not be construed as a failure of the Two Nations Theory. Our political mismanagement can’t nullify the basis of our existence
Conclusion
Hindus and Muslims in British India were two separate nations based on their respective cultural markers, particularly their religious beliefs and practices. They, therefore, needed their respective separate geographical spaces where they could live their lives accordingly.
Two-Nation Theory, a time-specific, area-specific formula, was the best option under the prevailing circumstances for the peaceful dissolution of the British Indian Empire. The other two options namely a united Sub-continent, or its Balkanisation, were fraught with grave consequences.
Yes, a United India after the exit of the British colonial master was an option for which Jinnah was very passionate till the last as is evident from his acceptance of the Cabinet Mission Plan. After all, there are countries where two nations are living peacefully.
However, a cursory glance at the history of relations between these two nations, namely Hindus and Muslims after the 1857 War of Independence is enough to nullify this stance. Too much water had flown under the bridge and partition of India became inevitable- Jinnah or no Jinnah.
And a golden opportunity to do so was wasted by Congress during its two years of ruling several states during 1937–39. It was a glimpse of the future for a post-British Subcontinent. Rejection of the Cabinet Plan by Congress was the last straw on the camel’s back; there was no turning back
Does It mean non-Muslims are now second-class citizens in Pakistan?
First thing first- Minorities everywhere feel alienated whether it is a developed country or an underdeveloped one. And the causes are various-race, religions, castes, sects, and colours. Sad and bad but true.
Thus, any maltreatment of minorities in Pakistan has nothing to do with the Two Nation Theory. The founding fathers had a very clear stand on this issue and all the constitutions made after the creation of Pakistan emphasised equal treatment for its citizens. The 11th August speech of Quaid was the most cogent and concise statement of his commitment to minorities. And it was not his afterthought; Jinnah was, as Gokhale once described him, a man entirely free of bias against any community or people. Pakistan Ideology, which replaced the Two Nations Theory after the creation of Pakistan incorporates his views.
