Has Pakistan's 2 nation theory been vindicated with the erosion of secularism in India & Bangladesh?

[street cricketer]

Has Pakistan's 2 nation theory been vindicated with the erosion of secularism in India & Bangladesh?

When the partition happened between India and Pakistan in 1947, both countries took different paths and ideologies. Pakistan was formed based on the ideology of the "Two Nation Theory" which basically states that Muslims and Hindus are different people and they cannot co exist together. And so, Pakistan became an Islamic republic soon after independence. Whereas India disagreed with the TNT and formed its country based on a secular ideology which sees people of all religions as the same. The Indian founding leaders disagreed with the Pakistani leaders' belief on the Two nation theory and said Hindus and Muslims could coexist together regardless of their religious differences.

Fast forward a few years later, the war for independence of East Pakistan happened and the nascent country of Bangladesh was formed. However despite being a muslim majority country, and despite being formerly a part of Pakistan which was an Islamic republic based on the Two nation theory, the Bangladeshi founding fathers, much like their Indian counterparts, formed their country based on a secular ideology. However the status of secularism in Bangladesh has been in a constant conflict since then, with military dictator Hussain Muhammad Ershad declaring Islam as the 'state religion' of Bangladesh in 1988. Regardless it is not compulsory for one to be a muslim to become the President or the Prime minister of Bangladesh and the oath for taking up these positions don't require a declaration to be a muslim as it is the case in Pakistan.

But with the recent rise of hindutva and hindu nationalism in India which calls for repealing secularism in India and making Hinduism as the state religion in the country, there has been a gradual erosion of secular ideals in the nation. Make no mistake, hindu nationalism has been present in India even before partition, but that was always in the fringe but it all changed since the turn of the millennium, and more particularly, since 2014 with Hindu nationalism becoming mainstream. Even within India, I always thought there were ideological differences between north indians and south indians. You'd always find more support for hindu nationalism in the Indian hinterlands in the northern belt rather than the peninsular south. But there has been a rise of hindu nationalism in regions in India where previously it wasn't a thing before, and I'm left wondering if it's a matter of when, not if, when hindutva becomes the predominant ideology in the south as well.

In the same way, in Bangladesh there has been a rise of right wing sentiments similar to India, and increasing support for non-secular parties which call for eradicating secularism completely as an ideology from the country. The rise of hindu/muslim nationalism and steady erosion of secular belief has mirrored in both India and Bangladesh in the last 1-2 decades or earlier, which also has resulted in anti muslim or anti hindu riots in respective countries.

I'm reminded of the famous Joker dialogue from the movie Dark Knight when I think of this situation - "Madness is like gravity, all it takes is just a little push..". Were the Pakistani leaders right all along? Is it true that it's not possible for hindus and muslims to coexist with each other as equals, that south asia, much like the middle east, is tribalistic by nature and one has to dominate the other inevitably. Did India and Bangladesh just bury their heads in the sand and failed to see the bitter reality of the subcontinent and pretending to be tolerant towards all faiths? Is India and Bangladesh becoming religious states an inevitable conclusion in south asia..Or could this be a transient phase that India and Bangladesh are going through before they return to their original ideals?

 

[MenInG]

I am not too sure who was right and who was wrong - fact is we are where we are. I have control over where I was born and neither does anyone else.

The only thing we can all do is GET ALONG!

 

[Major]

There is actually further elaboration in the two nation theory aswell.

What you have pisted is the present day scenario or the aftermath of what all happened.

Arguments that were posted in the past was that was this the country Jinnah wanted to be made?

A country whose leader has to be muslim no natter what. A country that treats its minorities badly, a country that provides no rights to minorities. A country that in 2021 is forcing everyone of its citizen to accept Mohammad as the last prophet where this statement is now being forced in different govt departments and papers. A country where darood shareef being read in the school assembly is more.important. A country that thinks religion is the only cure to all our problems.

I like to believe that jinnah rightly figured that muslims and hindus wouldnt had been able to coexists in one country due to the hate they have to an extent that even interfaith marriage is frowned upon.

However, once the country was made i would like to believe that jinnah would had preferred a secular constitution where the hindu population would had been protected and other sects would not had been forced beliefs upon them.

Pakistan messed up later on. Jinnah passed away and we needed a strong leader who could had talked or msde some sense. Instead we were racists agaisnt the bengalis, enforced a urdu as the national language and we even had cabinent members made up of army generals that would later be taking over the power and oncreasing their influence.

While Abraham Lincoln made sure that his country didnt break apart, in Pakistan no one cared or made the effort. Our army president yahyah khan did not care.

Long story short, the track that jinnah had set for us, we have been detracked from it by a long measure. Howeverz the fact that two countries still emerged out of india shows that two nation theory was needed but problem devoloped in how that other nation needs to be run.

Some might say that Bangladesh is more of a resembelance of what Jinnah wanted his Pakistan to be.

I wonder how do bengalis study Quaid E Azam? In their history books do they start of by his ideology or do they just concentrate on mujeeb ur rehman only

 

[amax]

no need to dwell in past , niether Pakistan need two nation theory for any justification of existence now , if strong socioeconomic links are established between all regions of pakistan, that their potential is optimized in a federation , it will be much greater than any religious bond ever.River Indus already provide degree of social economic silhoeutt to modern geography of pakistan, thats why pakistan rarely shows any sign of disintegration even at worst.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

It was an unfortunate act of racism that still manifests itself in the Punjabi centric treatment of Pukhtuns and Balochis.

 

[Major]

It was an unfortunate act of racism that still manifests itself in the Punjabi centric treatment of Pukhtuns and Balochis.

not really. Pakistan has moved on from ethnic racism.

People dont care about you being punjabi, pashtun or Baloch.

Yes in online communities I have seen hateful comments from people of Karachi for Punjabis... But Pakistan doesn't have ethnic racism that once was. Maybe i could be wrong on this though.

 

[street cricketer]

There is actually further elaboration in the two nation theory aswell.

What you have pisted is the present day scenario or the aftermath of what all happened.

Arguments that were posted in the past was that was this the country Jinnah wanted to be made?

A country whose leader has to be muslim no natter what. A country that treats its minorities badly, a country that provides no rights to minorities. A country that in 2021 is forcing everyone of its citizen to accept Mohammad as the last prophet where this statement is now being forced in different govt departments and papers. A country where darood shareef being read in the school assembly is more.important. A country that thinks religion is the only cure to all our problems.

I like to believe that jinnah rightly figured that muslims and hindus wouldnt had been able to coexists in one country due to the hate they have to an extent that even interfaith marriage is frowned upon.

However, once the country was made i would like to believe that jinnah would had preferred a secular constitution where the hindu population would had been protected and other sects would not had been forced beliefs upon them.

Pakistan messed up later on. Jinnah passed away and we needed a strong leader who could had talked or msde some sense. Instead we were racists agaisnt the bengalis, enforced a urdu as the national language and we even had cabinent members made up of army generals that would later be taking over the power and oncreasing their influence.

While Abraham Lincoln made sure that his country didnt break apart, in Pakistan no one cared or made the effort. Our army president yahyah khan did not care.

Long story short, the track that jinnah had set for us, we have been detracked from it by a long measure. Howeverz the fact that two countries still emerged out of india shows that two nation theory was needed but problem devoloped in how that other nation needs to be run.

Some might say that Bangladesh is more of a resembelance of what Jinnah wanted his Pakistan to be.

I wonder how do bengalis study Quaid E Azam? In their history books do they start of by his ideology or do they just concentrate on mujeeb ur rehman only

I've always thought Bangladesh is more in lines with what Jinnah imagined than Pakistan. But nevertheless I have my doubts though if Jinnah really wanted to create a secular muslim state. If I'm not wrong, he first supported Urdu being the national language for Pakistan, and it's very much in line with right wing policies of having one language, one religion, one system governance.

I also read that Suhrawardy wanted the AIML to drop the word "muslim" from the name of the political party because the objective of forming a religious state had been met and therefore there was no need to inject religion into politics and that nationalism in Pakistan must be based on sovereignty rather than religion. But his suggestion was apparently not heeded to and he split and laid the foundations for the "Awami League" in Bangladesh after dropping the word muslim from the original "Awami muslim league". In any case, Bangladesh is slowly reverting to Pakistan's ideology of TNT rather than the secular ideology it was founded on.

 

[Major]

I've always thought Bangladesh is more in lines with what Jinnah imagined than Pakistan. But nevertheless I have my doubts though if Jinnah really wanted to create a secular muslim state. If I'm not wrong, he first supported Urdu being the national language for Pakistan, and it's very much in line with right wing policies of having one language, one religion, one system governance.

I also read that Suhrawardy wanted the AIML to drop the word "muslim" from the name of the political party because the objective of forming a religious state had been met and therefore there was no need to inject religion into politics and that nationalism in Pakistan must be based on sovereignty rather than religion. But his suggestion was apparently not heeded to and he split and laid the foundations for the "Awami League" in Bangladesh after dropping the word muslim from the original "Awami muslim league". In any case, Bangladesh is slowly reverting to Pakistan's ideology of TNT rather than the secular ideology it was founded on.

You have to look at the situation back than. In hindsight all the solutions can be given because the earlier theories failed.

At that time the issue was whether to have an official language or no official language. This is where India handled it well. They gave all the languages equal importance and made them co-official languages, however keeping two as for national purposes.

Pakistan also had many groups consisting of Punjabis, Balochs, Sindhi, Urdu speaking, Pashto Speaking and the Bengali speaking people. Jinnah's idea was probably to have one language at national level that would be able to unite us all. He would also give that speech 7 in East Pakistan which the East Pakistanis waited for long.

Maybe the Quaid would had changed his stance later on, because right after 2 months of that speech in east pakistan he passed away. Remember, Quiad was part of Congress but after having a change of mind he joined Muslim League, thus, the Quaid wasn't someone who was rigged. He would take U-turns if it was for the better cause.

Interestingly, many Bengalis supported Fatima Jinnah which is what Ayub Khan hated to the extent that he had labelled her as a traitor. Many Bengalis voted for Fatimah Jinnah who should had won the election but Ayub Khan had rigged them heavily.

So the East Pakistani's or Bengalis that grew up from 45 had different views. I did some online searching and I found that all the Bangladeshi people born after 71 have this resentment for Jinnah, and thats because of the way how history is taught to them. Bangladeshis always refer to that language point to hate Jinnah, but many dont realize that east Pakistan or Bangladesh would had not even existed had it not been for Jinnah or Muslim league asking for Muslim majority states in the elections. I think it was Radcliff who bashed Muslim league when they complained about not getting the Muslim majority Punjab and Bengal as a whole that in the earlier elections they had only requested for a Muslim majority regions, thus not getting whole provinces.

In our classrooms, Gandhi is a bad man . If I ever get the opportunity, I would love to sit in an India, Bangladeshi and UK history class and study their versions of the subcontinent history.

I would further research and read some articles on Jinnah's views on Bengali and Urdu language.

 

[Major]

Also I would like to add, i always had massive respect for Mohammad Ali Bogra. Had we listened to this guy, our country would had been saved by many problems. This guy had proposed in the 50s that dont let army men be in the cabinet as we were giving them more influence. It sad that Governor General, Ghulam Mohammad ignored him and tried to bring every lunatic as Cabinet member either elected or not just like the current govt

 

[Mamoon]

The TNT was built on idealism and romanticism that ignored the ground realities. That is why it could not stand the test of time and was disproved by the separatist movement in east Pakistan and its subsequent independence.

The only saving grace is that two proponents of the TNT - in ideology that started in the 1600s - did not live long enough to witness the destruction of their idealism.

The TNT was forged on the faulty assumption that Muslims are one nation. It wrongly assumed that religion is a strong enough binding force to overcome sociocultural differences.

The reality is that if there are massive sociocultural differences, religion will fail to unite people.

From 1947 to 1971, the magnitude of racism and discrimination from West Pakistan to East Pakistan showed that the former were not willing to acknowledge the latter and give them due rights as equal Muslims and citizens of Pakistan.

We viewed Bengalis as an inferior race - they were looked down upon and their language, culture, physical characteristics etc. were associated with Indians and Hinduism.

Ironically, Quaid-e-Azam himself sowed the seeds of discrimination and disproved the TNT in his own personal capacity when he went to Dhaka in 1948 and declared Urdu as state language in spite of the Bengali majority.

That was the beginning of the end of the TNT and kickstarted the systematic discrimination that eventually lead to an independence movement.

The TNT was disproved long before secularism ended in India. The Muslims of subcontinent failed to prove that they are on nation. They couldn’t even stay united for more than 24 years.

 

[street cricketer]

You have to look at the situation back than. In hindsight all the solutions can be given because the earlier theories failed.

At that time the issue was whether to have an official language or no official language. This is where India handled it well. They gave all the languages equal importance and made them co-official languages, however keeping two as for national purposes.

Pakistan also had many groups consisting of Punjabis, Balochs, Sindhi, Urdu speaking, Pashto Speaking and the Bengali speaking people. Jinnah's idea was probably to have one language at national level that would be able to unite us all. He would also give that speech 7 in East Pakistan which the East Pakistanis waited for long.

Maybe the Quaid would had changed his stance later on, because right after 2 months of that speech in east pakistan he passed away. Remember, Quiad was part of Congress but after having a change of mind he joined Muslim League, thus, the Quaid wasn't someone who was rigged. He would take U-turns if it was for the better cause.

Interestingly, many Bengalis supported Fatima Jinnah which is what Ayub Khan hated to the extent that he had labelled her as a traitor. Many Bengalis voted for Fatimah Jinnah who should had won the election but Ayub Khan had rigged them heavily.

So the East Pakistani's or Bengalis that grew up from 45 had different views. I did some online searching and I found that all the Bangladeshi people born after 71 have this resentment for Jinnah, and thats because of the way how history is taught to them. Bangladeshis always refer to that language point to hate Jinnah, but many dont realize that east Pakistan or Bangladesh would had not even existed had it not been for Jinnah or Muslim league asking for Muslim majority states in the elections. I think it was Radcliff who bashed Muslim league when they complained about not getting the Muslim majority Punjab and Bengal as a whole that in the earlier elections they had only requested for a Muslim majority regions, thus not getting whole provinces.

In our classrooms, Gandhi is a bad man . If I ever get the opportunity, I would love to sit in an India, Bangladeshi and UK history class and study their versions of the subcontinent history.

I would further research and read some articles on Jinnah's views on Bengali and Urdu language.

To be completely honest, Jinnah is not really discussed in great detail in Indian book (at least it was the case when I studied school). He is known as one of the leaders of Congress, who later formed the All India Muslim League and that he fought for the cause of creating Pakistan. The ones who were really villainised were the Britishers. I remember only the British being villainised the most in Indian text books where the Indian mutiny of 1857 and how they quelled it, Jallianwala bagh massacre and things like that are discussed in detail. After that, Aurangazeb to an extent and then maybe Timur. The likes of Akbar, Shah Jahan, etc., were portrayed in very positive light. Aurangazeb is shown as the guy who imprisoned his own father, killed his brother to ascend the throne and one who reversed many of the tolerant policies of his predecessors like Akbar impacting the minorities.

I have no idea why Gandhi is the villain in Pakistani textbooks lol though given Gandhi was probably the first independence leader who lost his life for Pakistan! Godse felt Gandhi was too partial to the muslims and Pakistan (he held a hunger fast for Pakistan to get its share of revenue after partition) and listed it out as one of the main reasons for assassinating him. Similarly I don't think Jinnah would be portrayed in negative light in Bangladesh either, given he has nothing to do with what happened to them. The only part where I feel the Bengalis may have some resentment towards Jinnah was the imposition of urdu on them. Still, I don't think they would have any sort of animosity towards Jinnah.

I always thought Jinnah was a very pragmatic and practical leader personally. He thought muslims would be discriminated in a hindu majority state and so fought to create a new country for muslims, which is very fair in my opinion. My only disagreement, if any, is that in Pakistan adopting Islam as its official religion and it becoming an Islamic republic, he ended up creating a muslim majoritarian version of the discriminatory Hindu state he was running away from. Although I'm not sure if that was really his intentions though, different people have different opinions on the question whether he wanted to create a muslim majority but secular state like Turkey or an islamic religious state on the lines of Iran or Arab states minus the monarchy.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

Secularism is the only solution for Pakistan

If Pakistan keeps on promoting religious extremism and the PM keeps on giving them leeway, incidents like Sialkot one will continue and Pakistan’s image will be shredded into the pieces and no foreign company let alone citizens would like to come to this country. Rationalize all the institutes and teach secularism in school and limit the influence of religious schools

 

[Major]

To be completely honest, Jinnah is not really discussed in great detail in Indian book (at least it was the case when I studied school). He is known as one of the leaders of Congress, who later formed the All India Muslim League and that he fought for the cause of creating Pakistan. The ones who were really villainised were the Britishers. I remember only the British being villainised the most in Indian text books where the Indian mutiny of 1857 and how they quelled it, Jallianwala bagh massacre and things like that are discussed in detail. After that, Aurangazeb to an extent and then maybe Timur. The likes of Akbar, Shah Jahan, etc., were portrayed in very positive light. Aurangazeb is shown as the guy who imprisoned his own father, killed his brother to ascend the throne and one who reversed many of the tolerant policies of his predecessors like Akbar impacting the minorities.

I have no idea why Gandhi is the villain in Pakistani textbooks lol though given Gandhi was probably the first independence leader who lost his life for Pakistan! Godse felt Gandhi was too partial to the muslims and Pakistan (he held a hunger fast for Pakistan to get its share of revenue after partition) and listed it out as one of the main reasons for assassinating him. Similarly I don't think Jinnah would be portrayed in negative light in Bangladesh either, given he has nothing to do with what happened to them. The only part where I feel the Bengalis may have some resentment towards Jinnah was the imposition of urdu on them. Still, I don't think they would have any sort of animosity towards Jinnah.

I always thought Jinnah was a very pragmatic and practical leader personally. He thought muslims would be discriminated in a hindu majority state and so fought to create a new country for muslims, which is very fair in my opinion. My only disagreement, if any, is that in Pakistan adopting Islam as its official religion and it becoming an Islamic republic, he ended up creating a muslim majoritarian version of the discriminatory Hindu state he was running away from. Although I'm not sure if that was really his intentions though, different people have different opinions on the question whether he wanted to create a muslim majority but secular state like Turkey or an islamic religious state on the lines of Iran or Arab states minus the monarchy.

Interestingly he never choose state religion for Pakistan, Pakistan would become an Islamic Republic much much later.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Was India ever Secular ? Minority appeasement at the burden of the Majority is not Secularism

 

[sweep_shot]

"Two Nations" was the right decision without a doubt. Everybody was a winner. Thank you, Jinnah.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

How grateful should Pakistan be to Britain?. Modern day Pakistan was under the grip of sikh misl before they were defeated by British which eventually led to the dissolution of the empire empowering the Muslims.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The TNT was built on idealism and romanticism that ignored the ground realities. That is why it could not stand the test of time and was disproved by the separatist movement in east Pakistan and its subsequent independence.

The only saving grace is that two proponents of the TNT - in ideology that started in the 1600s - did not live long enough to witness the destruction of their idealism.

The TNT was forged on the faulty assumption that Muslims are one nation. It wrongly assumed that religion is a strong enough binding force to overcome sociocultural differences.

The reality is that if there are massive sociocultural differences, religion will fail to unite people.

From 1947 to 1971, the magnitude of racism and discrimination from West Pakistan to East Pakistan showed that the former were not willing to acknowledge the latter and give them due rights as equal Muslims and citizens of Pakistan.

We viewed Bengalis as an inferior race - they were looked down upon and their language, culture, physical characteristics etc. were associated with Indians and Hinduism.

Ironically, Quaid-e-Azam himself sowed the seeds of discrimination and disproved the TNT in his own personal capacity when he went to Dhaka in 1948 and declared Urdu as state language in spite of the Bengali majority.

That was the beginning of the end of the TNT and kickstarted the systematic discrimination that eventually lead to an independence movement.

The TNT was disproved long before secularism ended in India. The Muslims of subcontinent failed to prove that they are on nation. They couldn’t even stay united for more than 24 years.

TNT makes perfect sense if it stands for Three Nation Theory rather than Two. Bangladesh never reunited with India, they just split it up into another separate piece, so your reasoning doesn't really work. It just comes across as a bitter monologue against Pakistan, which is fine in itself, but not really winning your argument for you.

 

[LaLoco]

Was India ever Secular ? Minority appeasement at the burden of the Majority is not Secularism

Racist, intolerant, radicalism, perverting Hindu religion has been given a socially acceptable name "Minority appeasement".

This is how narrative is shaped.

 

[JaDed]

"Two Nations" was the right decision without a doubt. Everybody was a winner. Thank you, Jinnah.

Who everybody?

 

[sweep_shot]

Who everybody?

Pakistan and Bangladesh definitely.

India also.

 

[sweep_shot]

Who everybody?

Pakistan and Bangladesh definitely.

India also.

I also want to mention that without Pakistan, there would probably be no Bangladesh.

So, I respect Jinnah for what he has done for the Muslims of subcontinent. Muslims now have two homes in subcontinent (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

 

[JaDed]

Pakistan and Bangladesh definitely.

India also.

How has India benefitted in your opinion?

 

[sweep_shot]

How has India benefitted in your opinion?

If Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India were together, I think we could have seen far more religious conflicts.

We could've seen a massive and bloody civil war.

The conflicts could've killed many innocent Muslims and Hindus.

 

[JaDed]

If Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India were together, I think we could have seen far more religious conflicts.

We could've seen a massive and bloody civil war.

The conflicts could've killed many innocent Muslims and Hindus.

So you believe Muslims and Hindus shouldn’t live together, because they will kill each other?

 

[sweep_shot]

So you believe Muslims and Hindus shouldn’t live together, because they will kill each other?

I didn't necessarily say that. The answer to your question is not very black and white.

Subcontinent is a complex place. It is not like west where everyone can coexist.

Having two nations was a very good decision. That's all I have to say.

 

[JaDed]

I didn't necessarily say that. The answer to your question is not very black and white.

Subcontinent is a complex place. It is not like west where everyone can coexist.

Having two nations was a very good decision. That's all I have to say.

So you have formed an opinion but you don’t know why you have that opinion?

Also are you implying western people
can coexist but South Asians can’t?

 

[sweep_shot]

So you have formed an opinion but you don’t know why you have that opinion?

Also are you implying western people
can coexist but South Asians can’t?

My opinion is based on history (both past and modern). Just look around what is happening in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Things could've gotten messier had these 3 countries were together.

I think you also know deep down that it was a great decision to have two nations.

Do you think India should've been undivided?

 

[JaDed]

My opinion is based on history (both past and modern). Just look around what is happening in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

Things could've gotten messier had these 3 countries were together.

I think you also know deep down that it was a great decision to have two nations.

Do you think India should've been undivided?

I believe Subcontinent should had been divided based on regions and not religions, or not divided at all.

Why would I think it was a great decision? It was a great decision for below:

1. Muslim League
2. BJP -RSS

and people associating to their theories and biases.

 

[Dingolfy]

So you have formed an opinion but you don’t know why you have that opinion?

Also are you implying western people
can coexist but South Asians can’t?

West fought two bloody world wars between themselves before coexisting peacefully.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

When the partition happened between India and Pakistan in 1947, both countries took different paths and ideologies. Pakistan was formed based on the ideology of the "Two Nation Theory" which basically states that Muslims and Hindus are different people and they cannot co exist together. And so, Pakistan became an Islamic republic soon after independence. Whereas India disagreed with the TNT and formed its country based on a secular ideology which sees people of all religions as the same. The Indian founding leaders disagreed with the Pakistani leaders' belief on the Two nation theory and said Hindus and Muslims could coexist together regardless of their religious differences.

The TNT was not that Muslims and Hindus could not live together, it was that they had different customs and drew inspiration from differenet parts of subcontinent history, and most importantly that they could not share power equally.

And it was not Pakistan's theory, it was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's theory. Sir Syed at one time like Jinnah and Iqbal was an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, but eventually he stated the following:

Now, suppose that the English community and the army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannons and their splendid weapons and all else, who then would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations—the Mohammedans and the Hindus—could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable. But until one nation has conquered the other and made it obedient, peace cannot reign in the land.

Muslims were only 20% of the population then, so they rightly worried about being dominated by Hindus.

Fast forward a few years later, the war for independence of East Pakistan happened and the nascent country of Bangladesh was formed. However despite being a muslim majority country, and despite being formerly a part of Pakistan which was an Islamic republic based on the Two nation theory, the Bangladeshi founding fathers, much like their Indian counterparts, formed their country based on a secular ideology. However the status of secularism in Bangladesh has been in a constant conflict since then, with military dictator Hussain Muhammad Ershad declaring Islam as the 'state religion' of Bangladesh in 1988. Regardless it is not compulsory for one to be a muslim to become the President or the Prime minister of Bangladesh and the oath for taking up these positions don't require a declaration to be a muslim as it is the case in Pakistan

Bangladesh was created as a secular state, however they did not have to wait for 71 to get a country. Jinnah offered to have a United Bengal be an independent country. Hindus of West Bengal refused, as they did not want to be a minority in a Muslim majority country. This is exactly how Muslims felt about being in India.

Bangladesh is doing really well economically today, and its still officially secular, however imagine if India offered Went Bengal a chance to join Bangladesh, how many Hindus would support that? I would imagine it would be close to zero.

This is in essence the TNT, however instead of applying to the subcontinent as a whole the theory should have applied to the various ethnic groups among the Indo-Aryan languages.

But with the recent rise of hindutva and hindu nationalism in India which calls for repealing secularism in India and making Hinduism as the state religion in the country, there has been a gradual erosion of secular ideals in the nation. Make no mistake, hindu nationalism has been present in India even before partition, but that was always in the fringe but it all changed since the turn of the millennium, and more particularly, since 2014 with Hindu nationalism becoming mainstream. Even within India, I always thought there were ideological differences between north indians and south indians. You'd always find more support for hindu nationalism in the Indian hinterlands in the northern belt rather than the peninsular south. But there has been a rise of hindu nationalism in regions in India where previously it wasn't a thing before, and I'm left wondering if it's a matter of when, not if, when hindutva becomes the predominant ideology in the south as well.

In the eyes of Muslims Congress was Soft Hindutva. Thats why the Muslim League won almost all the seats in the 1946 election. If BJP was in charge instead of Congress the remaining ones would also have been won.

So for Hindus it might have been a fringe of Hindu Nationalism before partition, but not for a great deal of Muslims.

I'm reminded of the famous Joker dialogue from the movie Dark Knight when I think of this situation - "Madness is like gravity, all it takes is just a little push..". Were the Pakistani leaders right all along? Is it true that it's not possible for hindus and muslims to coexist with each other as equals, that south asia, much like the middle east, is tribalistic by nature and one has to dominate the other inevitably. Did India and Bangladesh just bury their heads in the sand and failed to see the bitter reality of the subcontinent and pretending to be tolerant towards all faiths? Is India and Bangladesh becoming religious states an inevitable conclusion in south asia..Or could this be a transient phase that India and Bangladesh are going through before they return to their original ideals?

The way to do this is for their to be mutual respect among Hindus and Muslims and not to impose their culture on the other. The similarities in culture can be emphasized but we should accept the differences are not reconcilable, and that is ok.

To quote Sir Syed Khan again

India is a beautiful bride and Hindus and Muslims are her two eyes. ... If one of them is lost, this beautiful bride will become ugly.

 

[street cricketer]

The TNT was not that Muslims and Hindus could not live together, it was that they had different customs and drew inspiration from differenet parts of subcontinent history, and most importantly that they could not share power equally.

And it was not Pakistan's theory, it was Sir Syed Ahmed Khan's theory. Sir Syed at one time like Jinnah and Iqbal was an ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity, but eventually he stated the following:

Got it. I've read this quote from Sir Syed before.

Muslims were only 20% of the population then, so they rightly worried about being dominated by Hindus.

That is very natural. Don't blame them.

Bangladesh was created as a secular state, however they did not have to wait for 71 to get a country. Jinnah offered to have a United Bengal be an independent country. Hindus of West Bengal refused, as they did not want to be a minority in a Muslim majority country. This is exactly how Muslims felt about being in India.

Bangladesh is doing really well economically today, and its still officially secular, however imagine if India offered Went Bengal a chance to join Bangladesh, how many Hindus would support that? I would imagine it would be close to zero.

Well, Bangladesh is not completely secular. It's secularism is based along the same lines of India, i.e., respect all religions equally rather than a complete separation of the church from the state, France style. But in many ways, it's a lot less secular than India. Bangladesh's official state religion is Islam. Hindus and Muslims can't legally marry each other and similarly Buddhists with muslims, etc. It can be described as following ambiguous secularism.

In the eyes of Muslims Congress was Soft Hindutva. Thats why the Muslim League won almost all the seats in the 1946 election. If BJP was in charge instead of Congress the remaining ones would also have been won.

So for Hindus it might have been a fringe of Hindu Nationalism before partition, but not for a great deal of Muslims.

Well most muslims (at least the ones who supported the Pakistan movement) wanted a separate muslim state or dominion that would be Islamic in character rather than a secular one. Congress said that the entire country should be a secular one instead and the Muslim League followers were unhappy with Congress standpoint. It's because the muslims who supported the Pakistan movement wanted a separate muslim state based upon Islamic nationalism, the Congress saying it should be secular instead might have felt like 'soft hindutva' for those muslims. When you're so far in the right wing spectrum wanting a religious state, even a centre view point from Congress would be seen as adopting a hindu right wing position.

The Muslim league laid out unrealistic demands on the Congress, which was never going to happen. The ML wanted a "minimum" of 1/3rd reservation (~ >33%) of all seats in any cabinet formed at Central or provincial level. You yourself have said muslims were around 20% of British India's population, and in a lot of provinces (except the muslim majority ones + Delhi and Assam among the hindu majority provinces), muslims were just around 10-12% or even lesser, yet ML did not settle for nothing less than 33% of seats at central and state/provincial level. ML wanted a disproportionately high representation of seats relative to their population at Central and provincial level, which was always an unrealistic ask. .

Secondly, ML wanted separate electorates, which the Congress didn't agree. A separate electorate is discriminatory to the minorities living in that region. A separate electorate would mean, say if there are a 100 seats in Pakistan's cabinet at central level, 5 seats maybe be reserved for non muslims of Pakistan. But in the remaining 95 seats, only muslims can vote and influence the politics of the region while hindus and Christians can vote only in the 5 seats alloted to them. Say if separate electorates existed in UP now, muslims of that state can only vote for the few seats allotted to them, but they cannot vote in the majority of seats which only the hindus would be able to. This is problematic because if a right wing leader like Yogi Adityanath runs in the polls, only the hindus would be able to vote for the majority of the seats and muslims would never be able to use their vote power to try and vote out or prevent someone like Yogi Adityanath from winning the UP elections.

The way to do this is for their to be mutual respect among Hindus and Muslims and not to impose their culture on the other. The similarities in culture can be emphasized but we should accept the differences are not reconcilable, and that is ok.

To quote Sir Syed Khan again

Well it could be possible, but that could only happen if both communities accept to separation of religion from the state, to keep the state neutral with regards to religion. Muslims of Pakistan would never accept to that point (secularism is anathema for most of Pakistanis) whereas the Bengali muslims are comparatively a lot more secular by nature. However, we have seen how Islamic nationalism is reviving even among them as well, as evidenced by them adopting a state religion of Islam. We have also seen how hindu nationalism has been rising in India owing to insecurity towards rising muslim numbers.

A joint India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have only fuelled insecurities against each other and increasing polarisation would lead them to adopt far right positions with respect to their religion when it comes to politics, a perfect recipe for disaster. In other words, a united India Pakistan and Bangladesh would've been possible only if all the hindus and muslims were secular in nature. That's far from the reality though.

 

[transparent opacity]

The Two-Nation theory had lived its utility a long time ago. Its main focus was the creation of a separate Muslim state and it has been successful in doing that.
Whatever happened after the independence is a different story altogether. Poor economic and political policies led to the fall of Dhaka, had nothing to do with TNT.
Now, the situation in India proves that it was the right decision, otherwise, it could have been chaos.

 

[KB]

In the eyes of Muslims Congress was Soft Hindutva.

Indeed. Historical scholarship has demonstrated very clearly that Indian nationalism was inflected with the language of Hindu revivalism. The clearest case of this has been presented by historian William Gould. Focussing on the Congress in the UP in the 1930s and 1940s, amongst much else, he demonstrates that Hindu holy men, loosely associated with the Congress, intermeshed the language of nationalism with that of religion; that festivals and temples, infused with religious meaning, became important arenas where nationalist ideas were espoused; that the use of religious symbols, and indeed religious figures, in mobilising popular support for the Congress became increasingly common; that ideas of sin and pollution were used in ways, which marginalised Muslims; that the sense of cultural identity the Congress frequently depicted showed a kinship with the ideas being propounded by ‘hard-core’ Hindu nationalists; and that there were institutional overlaps between the Congress in the UP and those institutions associated with a more ‘hardline’ form of Hindu nationalism - the Mahasabha and most particularly the Arya Samaj in the 1930s.

The current BJP government retails a far more staunch Hindu nationalist message, but there are some lines of continuity. “The continued significance of a religious idiom in politics from the 1920s to the millennium across institutions, from the BJP to the Congress” states Gould, “provides us with a fundamental, if subtle, clue to the persistence of Hindu nationalism in the politics of India.”

Why did Hindu nationalist symbolism feature so heavily within Indian nationalism, despite the secular rhetoric of the all-India Congress leaders? Symbols were called upon to inspire action, create enthusiasm and to fashion a sense of purposeful unity. But it was impossible to draw on a set of symbols that could unite all and herein lay the basis for contradiction.

Nationalists everywhere frequently deployed a repertoire of symbols and elevated nationalism to a form of ‘secular religion’ - a set of symbols, myths, beliefs, rituals, festivals, traditions that transform the nation into a supreme and sacred being, an object of devotion, even worship.

Indian nationalists drew on iconography rich in cultural meaning as well as mythologising the past and sacralising the nationalist struggle. This is the case whether one looks at the evocation of the spirit of a ‘golden age’ through the Vedic myth; or the sacralisation of the land, through an emphasis on the charisma of its holy mountains, soil, and rivers; or the use of the cow as a consecrated symbol to rally around, which also transcended regional and local attachments (and notably after partition became the electoral symbol of the Congress party); or the recourse to scripture, with Gokhale and Gandhi amongst those who looked to the Bhagavad Gita for inspiration.

These symbols were, though, suffused with particular Hindu sensibilities. Indian nationalists, like many nationalists elsewhere, were keen to stress the specialness/uniqueness/distinctiveness of the community and the belief in its links to remote ancestors by blood and culture. As Indian historian Sumit Sarkar perceptively noted, this though often slipped into implying a unity based on Hinduism: “It has often seemed important for even the most secular of Indian nationalists to derive sustenance and authenticity from images of subcontinental unity...extending back into a supposedly glorious past...the tendency has remained strong to assume some kind of cultural or civilisational integration as the ultimate foundation of nationalism. And then it becomes difficult – even for a Nehru writing his Discovery of India – to resist the further slide towards assuming that unity, after all, has been primarily Hindu.”

The power of the semiotic was clearly demonstrated in the image of India, the motherland, as Bharat Mata, aimed at uniting Indians and inspiring nationalist devotion. But “the possibility of bringing about the unity of the citizenry through such means” notes the cultural historian Sumathi Ramaswamy,

“founders on the obvious contradiction that Mother India’s manifest form is so visibly Hindu as betrayed by so many of the elements that have gone into fashioning her pictorial self… Bharat Mata’s anthropomorphic form, deployed visually to transform “the dust of some map-made land” into a “living mother,” at the same time undermines attempts to secure a plural and religious diverse body politic, and the rational science of cartography itself ironically becomes complicit in picturing India as essentially and eternally Hindu.”

But whatever its contradictions, as a symbol it was too powerful to ignore. This is because rituals, traditions, myths, symbols are sources of transcendent meaning, that also provide a basis for collective action, shared feelings and common purpose. They can be frames of reference, sets of common principles that bind people together as well as providing a ‘spiritual’ refuge.

 

[Lego20]

Chodo abhi TNT. The one thing Pakistan (and its people) need to appreciate is nation boundaries. Dont interfere in neighborhood under the guise of Muslim brotherhood and Umma and all that. You got your way in 1947. Now rest in peace and mind your house.

And same for India as well.

 

[KB]

While acknowledging that I am going a bit off topic now, as a footnote to my above post on the power of symbols, consider the French revolution, which was based on Enlightenment values, particularly reason. Yet it was hardly devoid of symbolism that appealed to emotion. As the famous sociologist, Emile Durkheim, noted “the French Revolution instituted a whole cycle of festivals to preserve the principles that inspired it in a state of perpetual youth.” It adopted a national anthem, a new flag, a new calendar, new rituals such as the Liberty Tree. It sought to create new cults - the Cult of Reason and Cult of Supreme Being. It treated the Motherland as a secular sacred spirit. Relying only on rational argument was not enough. There needed to be fire in the blood.

In understanding where some of this drive comes from, a good starting place is the incredible work of the cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, in his book, The Denial of Death. We are unique amongst species in our self-awareness, but this comes, Becker argued, at the cost of knowing our mortality. Becker argued that in order to protect ourselves from the terror of death, we have created protective shields - “hero systems” - that take us as individuals beyond ourselves; systems in other words that enables us to transcend life and indeed death itself, to become part of some higher reality. In his words: “It doesn’t matter whether the cultural hero-system is frankly magical, religious, and primitive or secular, scientific, and civilized. It is still a mythical hero-system in which people serve in order to earn a feeling of primary value, of cosmic specialness, of ultimate usefulness to creation, of unshakable meaning. They earn this feeling by carving out a place in nature, by building an edifice that reflects human value: a temple, a cathedral, a totem pole, a skyscraper, a family that spans three generations. The hope and belief is that the things that man creates in society are of lasting worth and meaning, that they outlive or outshine death and decay, that man and his products count.”

Related to this craving for meaning and specifically on nationalism, Anthony Smith, a scholar who wrote prolifically on the subject of nationalism, noted that a national identity gave “cultural fulfilment, rootedness, security and fraternity” and satisfied a human “craving for immortality.” Smith pointed to the “transcendental dimension” of nationalism which “raises the individual above the earthly round and out of immediate time.”

 

[PakLFC]

Two nation theory always made complete sense. Hindu's and Muslim's have always been a separate people as the Quaid Jinnah rightly said. Modi killing Muslim's in India has only proved Mr Jinnah to be absolutely correct. Even in a messed up Pak as it is I would still prefer this them anything else.

 

[jaf348]

Educated Muslims, Hindus and Christians could have peacefully co-existed with good willed politicians at the helm.

Kerala would be a good example with a population of 35 million consisting of 55% Hindus, 25% Muslims and 20% Christians and an overall level of harmony not found elsewhere in the subcontinent.

 

[street cricketer]

Indeed. Historical scholarship has demonstrated very clearly that Indian nationalism was inflected with the language of Hindu revivalism.

I always find it hard to understand the polemics of Pakistanis against India's secularism. Yes, it has been gradually eroded in the last decade or so by the hindu nationalists, but I can't understand the perpetual belittling of India's secular movements that existed even before independence and their tendency to paint everyone as an arm of the "soft hindutva", including Gandhi. Yes, India's secularism is not perfect, it's far from secularism in its truest essence that separates religion from the state, but to divorce religion from the state is very difficult in any country, never mind India. Even most of the secular western liberal states have a state church, and have words referring to 'God' in their constitution. So a complete removal of religion from the state, in a region where spirituality in all forms has always converged, morphed and evolved into various other faiths is practically impossible. ​In fact, that would affect the muslims of India more than the hindus as true secularism would mean no Muslim personal laws for muslims. So India attempts (or rather attempted) to remain equidistant from each religion, but that has now been changed by the Hindu nationalists.

I was particularly amused by you using Gandhi's belief in the Bhagavad Gita as an example of Congress' version of soft hindutva. Gandhi was a practising Hindu and and of course he would seek inspiration from the Bhagavad Gita, as would any muslim from the Quran. Is it impossible for a religious person to be secular? It's all the more amusing because Gandhi went the extra mile for the Hindu-Muslim unity to achieve independence and gain the support of the muslims through his support of the Khilafat movement, a movement which had no relation to the Indian independence struggle. Ambedkar wrote about this in his book on the question of Partition of India:

Mr. Savarkar is quite unconcerned about the Muslim reaction to his scheme. He formulates his scheme and throws it in the face of the Muslims with the covering letter 'take it or leave it.' He is not perturbed by the Muslim refusal to join in the struggle for Swaraj. He is quite conscious of the strength of the Hindus and the Hindu Maha Sabha and proposes to carry on the struggle in the confident hope that, alone and unaided, the Hindus will be able to wrest Swaraj from the British. Mr. Savarkar is quite prepared to say to the Musalmans: "If you come, with you, if you don't, without you; and if you oppose, in spite of you—the Hindus will continue to fight for their national freedom as best as they can."

Not so Mr. Gandhi. At the very commencement of his career as a political leader of India when Mr. Gandhi startled the people of India by his promise to win Swaraj within six months, Mr. Gandhi said that he could perform the miracle only if certain conditions were fulfilled. One of these conditions was the achievement of Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi is never tired of saying that there is no Swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unity. Mr. Gandhi did not merely make this slogan the currency of Indian politics, but he has strenuously worked to bring it about.

Gandhi started the Satyagraha campaign as a form of protest against the Rowlatt act, and he asked the masses attending the meetings to take the following vow:

"With God as witness, we Hindus, and Mahomedans declare that we shall behave towards one another as children of the same parents, that we shall have no differences, that the sorrows of each shall be the sorrows of the other and that each shall help the other in removing them. We shall respect each other's religion and religious feelings and shall not stand in the way of our respective religious practices. We shall always refrain from violence to each other in the name of religion."

Ambedkar goes on further in his book..

The Mahomedans started the Khilafat movement in 1919. The objective of the movement was two-fold: to preserve the Khilafat and to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. Both these objectives were unsupportable. The Khilafat could not be saved simply because the Turks, in whose interest this agitation was carried on, did not want the Sultan. They wanted a republic, and it was quite unjustifiable to compel the Turks to keep Turkey a monarchy when they wanted to convert it into a republic. It was not open to insist upon the integrity of the Turkish Empire because it meant the perpetual subjection of the different nationalities to the Turkish rule and particularly of the Arabs, especially when it was agreed on all hands that the doctrine of self-determination should be made the basis of the peace settlement.

The movement was started by the Mahomedans. It was taken up by Mr. Gandhi with a tenacity and faith which must have surprised many Mahomedans themselves. There were many people who doubted the ethical basis of the Khilafat movement and tried to dissuade Mr. Gandhi from taking any part in a movement the ethical basis of which was so questionable. But Mr. Gandhi had so completely persuaded himself of the justice of the Khilafat agitation that he refused to yield to their advice. Time and again he argued that the cause was just and it was his duty to join it. The position taken up by him may be summed up in his own words.

"(1) In my opinion, the Turkish claim is not only not immoral and unjust, but it is highly equitable, only because Turkey wants to retain what is her own. And the Mahomedan manifesto has definitely declared that whatever guarantee may be necessary to be taken for the protection of the non-Muslim and non-Turkish races, should be taken so as to give the Christians theirs and the Arabs their self-government under the Turkish suzerainty;
(2) I do not believe the Turk to be weak, incapable or cruel. He is certainly disorganised and probably without good generalship. The argument of weakness, incapacity and cruelty one often hears quoted in connection with those from whom power is sought to be taken away. About the alleged massacres a proper commission has been asked for, but never granted. And in any case security can be taken against oppression;

(3) I have already stated that, if I were not interested in the Indian Mahomedans, I would not interest myself in the welfare of the Turks any more than I am in that of the Austrians or the Poles. But I am bound as an Indian to share the sufferings and trials of fellow-Indians. If I deem the Mahomedan to be my brother, it is my duty to help him in his hour of peril to the best of my ability, if his cause commends itself to me as just;

(4) The fourth refers to the extent Hindus should join hands with the Mahomedans. It is, therefore, a matter of feeling and opinion. It is expedient to suffer for my Mahomedan brother to the utmost in a just cause and I should, therefore, travel with him along the whole road so long as the means employed by him are as honourable as his end. I cannot regulate the Mahomedan feeling. I must accept his statement that the Khilafat is with him a religious question in the sense that it binds him to reach the goal even at the cost of his own life."

 

[street cricketer]

Yes, Gandhi did steer the independence struggle towards religion, but it was not just in one direction, in a way Savarkar would have wanted. In fact, Jinnah was a staunch constitutionalist and secularist in his earlier years and was unhappy with Gandhi's idea of infusing religion into independence politics. As a confirmed secularist he was against the use of Hindu and Muslim religious terminology adopted by Gandhi to mobilize the populace. He was opposed not only to the use of references to Hindu idioms such as Ram Rajya but even more strongly to the Khilafat movement that he scorned as antediluvian. He warned Gandhi that the use of religious idioms to mobilize people against British rule would lead to perpetual division between Hindus and Muslims and jeopardize the unity of India. He refused to refer to the leader of the Khilafat movement Muhammad Ali as "Maulana" for which he was hooted down at the Nagpur session of the Congress in 1920 and left in disgust. This was the immediate reason why he resigned from the Congress.

On the question of cow slaughter, the muslims implored the hindus to join in the non-cooperation movement against the British, but a segment of hindus wanted muslims to give up cow slaughter if they wanted to join them in their struggle. Ambedkar writes on the issue:

Mr. Gandhi did not care for those Hindus who were opposed to joining the Muslims in the Non-co-operation Movement. But with regard to the others he told them that their attitude was unfortunate. To those Hindus who wanted to give their support on the condition that the Muslims give up cow killing, Mr. Gandhi said:

"I submit that the Hindus may not open the Goraksha (cow protection) question here. The test of friendship is assistance in adversity, and that too, unconditional assistance. Co-operation that needs consideration is a commercial contract and not friendship. Conditional co-operation is like adulterated cement which does not bind. It is the duty of the Hindus, if they see the justice of the Mahomedan cause to render co-operation. If the Mahomedans feel themselves bound in honour to spare the Hindu's feelings and to stop cow killing, they may do so, no matter whether the Hindus co-operate with them or not. Though therefore, I yield to no Hindu in my worship of the cow, I do not want to make the stopping of cow killing a condition precedent to co-operation. Unconditional co-operation means the protection of the cow."

Gandhi also failed to call out the muslims who were involved in the gross violence against the hindus of Malabar during the Moplah riots, which were a result of the Khilafat movement he so steadfastly supported.

As for Gandhi being inspired by the Bhagavad Gita, he also asked the Hindus to chant the Takbir in solidarity with the muslims and also to have faith in the slogan of the muslims. In an Article in Young India of 8th September 1920 Mr. Gandhi said:

"During the Madras tour, at Bezwada I had occasion to remark upon the national crisis and suggested that it would be better to have cries about ideals than men. I asked the audience to replace Mahatma Gandhi-ki-jai and Mahomed Ali Shoukat Ali-ki-jai by Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai. Brother Shoukat Ali, who followed, positively laid down the law. In spite of the Hindu-Muslim unity, he had observed that, if Hindus shouted Bande Mataram, the Muslims rang out with Allaho Akbar and vice versa. This, he rightly said jarred on the ear and still showed that the people did not act with one mind. There should be therefore only three cries recognised. Allaho Akbar to be joyously sung out by Hindus and Muslims, showing that God alone was great and no other. The second should be Bande Malaram (Hail Motherland) or Bharat Mata-ki-jai (Victory to Mother Hind).

The third should be Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai without which there was no victory for India, and no true demonstration of the greatness of God.. I do wish that the newspapers and public men would take up the Maulana's suggestion and lead the people only to use the three cries. They are full of meaning.

The first is a prayer and confession of our littleness and therefore a sign of humility. It is a cry in which all Hindus and Muslims should join in reverence and prayfulness. Hindus may not fight shy of Arabic words, when their meaning is not only totally inoffensive but even ennobling. God is no respecter of any particular tongue. Bande Mataram, apart from its wonderful associations, expresses the one national wish—the rise of India to her full height. And I should prefer Bande Mataram to Bharat Mata-ki-jai, as it would be a graceful recognition of the intellectual and emotional superiority of Bengal. Since India can be nothing without the union of the Hindu and the Muslim heart, Hindu-Musalman-ki-jai is a cry which we may never forget.

"There should be no discordance in these cries. Immediately some one has taken up any of the three cries, the rest should take it up and not attempt to yell out their favourite. Those, who do not wish to join, may refrain, but should consider it a breach of etiquette to interpolate their own when a cry has already been raised. It would be better too, always to follow out the three cries in the order given above."

So Gandhi went the extra mile to gain the support of the muslim masses for the independence struggle through religious movements, which even the likes of Jinnah was unhappy about. Indeed, Godse assassinated him because he felt he had betrayed the hindu cause by appeasing the muslims too much and not caring enough about the hindus. Gandhi is aptly described by many who lost his life for the cause of Pakistan, even though he was against the partition of the country as he felt such a partition would lead to the hindus and muslims viewing each other as enemies for the duration of the time both partitioned countries would continue to exist. Ironically, Gandhi ended up being hated by both the hindus, because he was not Hindu enough and betrayed the Hindu cause, and by the muslims because he opposed the cause of Pakistan and so was a soft hindutvadi in their eyes.

There is one quote that I came across in the past I'm often reminded of when I read about the contempt Pakistanis have for Indian secular movements - Pakistanis expect every Indian to be an Arundati Roy or Noam Chomsky, dissociating themselves completely from their religion, while they wear their faith on their sleeve with full conviction". The mass support for the Hindu nationalism in India is in part due to this driven by social media, as the Hindu nationalists feel the muslims benefited by partition in two ways - by them getting a Muslim state in Pakistan, and by stopping India from becoming a Hindu state.

 

[KB]

I always find it hard to understand the polemics of Pakistanis against India's secularism. Yes, it has been gradually eroded in the last decade or so by the hindu nationalists, but I can't understand the perpetual belittling of India's secular movements that existed even before independence and their tendency to paint everyone as an arm of the "soft hindutva", including Gandhi.

To dismiss the link between Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism during the colonial era as only exaggerations concocted by jaundiced Pakistanis, seems to be ignorant of what serious historians have written.

Consider just some of the historians whose works have either established the links between Hindu nationalism and Indian nationalism or pointed to the general context of an emerging Hindu revivalism in the colonial era: Mushirul Hasan, Francis Robinson, Sudhir Chandra, William Gould, Tanika Sarkar, Sumathi Ramaswamy, Perry Anderson, Taylor Sherman, Ian Copland, and Charu Gupta. (I am happy to provide the exact sources if anyone wants them).

None of these are Pakistanis and only the work of Perry Anderson might be characterised as polemical in nature. Indeed, one of these historians - the late Mushirul Hasan, a great admirer of Nehru - was scathing about Jinnah and the Muslim League. But even though he was biting about what he termed the Muslim League “claptrap” he acknowledged that “The Congress, in spite of its secular protestations, was often drawn into activities or movements pioneered by Hindu revivalists.”

Nor was it only historians looking back who identified such links. As the veteran member and barrister V. Krishnamachari observed in 1953: “The real truth is that many of the so-called Congressmen in Tamil Nadu are only communalists in Congress garb.”

No one of course denies that there were and are differences between ‘soft’ Hindu nationalism and ‘hard’ Hindu nationalism. And of course there were Congressmen who were sincere in their secularism. But as historian Benjamin Zachariah (also not a Pakistani!), who has written a book in Nehru - wrote:

“The Congress was far from a secular organisation as a whole; it was a coalition that contained resolutely secular members, and a large section who hid their Hindu sectarianism behind the secular rhetoric that was obligatory due to the Congress’s official position. It is no longer terribly novel to say that the Congress was at least two parties (or tendencies), one of which was indeed the collection of upper-caste Hindu sectarians of the Muslim League’s propaganda; it may still be a little alarming if this is made explicit.”

Indeed Zachariah, sees one of Nehru’s “major achievement” to be that he was able to “disarm” the view of Indian culture as Hindu, but “it could, of course, be argued that this was a matter of naming: a Hindu majoritarian ethic could hide behind the secular view of an overarching Indian culture, in which 'Hindu' culture, no longer so called, was given a large space, with any attempt to assert the particularism of a Muslim or any other minority culture being regarded as 'communal'. This allowed Hindu sectarianism to survive behind a veneer of political correctness, even within the Congress.”

I am happy to go on providing more quotations in relation to this. But given that it is no longer particularly “novel” to point all of this out, the more interesting point is to ask why in spite of secular rhetoric of the all-India leaders, Indian nationalism meshed at the symbolic level with Hindu nationalism.

This is what I tried to do and in doing so, my point was not to blame individuals nor to belittle the Congress movement. Rather it was to point to the importance of the human need for meaning and transcendence (post 35), especially in circumstances when the established order has either collapsed or is on the verge of change. In colonial India, recourse to ‘culture’ was therefore important in generating a sense of meaning, belonging, identity amongst a critical mass in an age where the public sphere was becoming enlarged.

Symbols as expressions of culture were powerful in pointing to a shared ‘cosmology’ but it was hard, in the Indian context, to find symbols that appealed to all communities. The symbols that became prominent could certainly unite a great many, but they also at the same time alienated minorities.

 

[Lego20]

Yes 2 nation theory is da best. Each religion should have its own separate country. Further, sub-sects within a religion can further ask for their own. Well actually, each individual family should have his own nation.

 

[PakLFC]

Hundred times yes! I would have abhorred the idea of being part of one India. The breaking of India was one of the biggest events of the last century. India can now be secular or whatever they want that has nothing to do with Pak. We wanted and got our own country even it it meant at the expense of million's dying. History is made by those who dare to dream big, by those who go against the grain.

 

[street cricketer]

To dismiss the link between Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism during the colonial era as only exaggerations concocted by jaundiced Pakistanis, seems to be ignorant of what serious historians have written.

Consider just some of the historians whose works have either established the links between Hindu nationalism and Indian nationalism or pointed to the general context of an emerging Hindu revivalism in the colonial era: Mushirul Hasan, Francis Robinson, Sudhir Chandra, William Gould, Tanika Sarkar, Sumathi Ramaswamy, Perry Anderson, Taylor Sherman, Ian Copland, and Charu Gupta. (I am happy to provide the exact sources if anyone wants them).

None of these are Pakistanis and only the work of Perry Anderson might be characterised as polemical in nature. Indeed, one of these historians - the late Mushirul Hasan, a great admirer of Nehru - was scathing about Jinnah and the Muslim League. But even though he was biting about what he termed the Muslim League “claptrap” he acknowledged that “The Congress, in spite of its secular protestations, was often drawn into activities or movements pioneered by Hindu revivalists.”

Nor was it only historians looking back who identified such links. As the veteran member and barrister V. Krishnamachari observed in 1953: “The real truth is that many of the so-called Congressmen in Tamil Nadu are only communalists in Congress garb.”

No one of course denies that there were and are differences between ‘soft’ Hindu nationalism and ‘hard’ Hindu nationalism. And of course there were Congressmen who were sincere in their secularism. But as historian Benjamin Zachariah (also not a Pakistani!), who has written a book in Nehru - wrote:

“The Congress was far from a secular organisation as a whole; it was a coalition that contained resolutely secular members, and a large section who hid their Hindu sectarianism behind the secular rhetoric that was obligatory due to the Congress’s official position. It is no longer terribly novel to say that the Congress was at least two parties (or tendencies), one of which was indeed the collection of upper-caste Hindu sectarians of the Muslim League’s propaganda; it may still be a little alarming if this is made explicit.”

Indeed Zachariah, sees one of Nehru’s “major achievement” to be that he was able to “disarm” the view of Indian culture as Hindu, but “it could, of course, be argued that this was a matter of naming: a Hindu majoritarian ethic could hide behind the secular view of an overarching Indian culture, in which 'Hindu' culture, no longer so called, was given a large space, with any attempt to assert the particularism of a Muslim or any other minority culture being regarded as 'communal'. This allowed Hindu sectarianism to survive behind a veneer of political correctness, even within the Congress.”

I am happy to go on providing more quotations in relation to this. But given that it is no longer particularly “novel” to point all of this out, the more interesting point is to ask why in spite of secular rhetoric of the all-India leaders, Indian nationalism meshed at the symbolic level with Hindu nationalism.

This is what I tried to do and in doing so, my point was not to blame individuals nor to belittle the Congress movement. Rather it was to point to the importance of the human need for meaning and transcendence (post 35), especially in circumstances when the established order has either collapsed or is on the verge of change. In colonial India, recourse to ‘culture’ was therefore important in generating a sense of meaning, belonging, identity amongst a critical mass in an age where the public sphere was becoming enlarged.

Symbols as expressions of culture were powerful in pointing to a shared ‘cosmology’ but it was hard, in the Indian context, to find symbols that appealed to all communities. The symbols that became prominent could certainly unite a great many, but they also at the same time alienated minorities.

The Indian political scene was dominated largely by upper caste Hindus, even in states like Tamil Nadu, Congress or otherwise. In fact, the Dravidian ideology of rationalism that dominates the political scene in TN today owes its roots to the radical atheistic anti religion anti caste ideological politics of EV Ramasamy, popularly known as Periyar starting from the 1920s, who directly challenged Brahminism in Indian society and particularly politics in Tamil Nadu, even if he maintained a lifelong friendship with Rajaji, the Congress stalwart in TN, who was a Brahmin. Upper caste hindu men always had/have the same ideological sentiments towards religion that muslims have, although the former might mask it better, while the latter are explicit about it. So it's no real surprise that the Congressmen in Tamil Nadu had sentiments towards soft hindutva, or the Congressmen in national politics.

But as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Pakistan adopted a distinctly "muslim" flag fitting the muslim state that it was created as, Sri Lanka have the lion representing the majoritarian Sinhalese in their flag but India has zero majoritarian symbolism in its national flag - the Ashoka Chakra is a representation of the Dharma Chakra of Buddhism referring to the principles of life and the Ashoka Chakra is supposed to represent progression of Indian people. Bangladesh also adopted a national flag that's devoid of any majoritarian religious symbolism. Similarly, Buddhism is the official religion of Sri Lanka and is given the foremost place in the Sri Lankan constitution. Pakistan is unabashedly muslim in its national constitution. Bangladesh maintained its secularism for a few years, but soon Islam was adopted as the state religion by a dictator and has remained so since then. Hinduism is neither the official religion, nor the state religion in India, and it's only the Hindu nationalists who are attempting to change the status quo.

You talk about prominent Hindu symbolism in post independent India, I am curious to know what you think constitutes prominent Hindu symbolism in post Independent India. You say the word "Indian culture" is just a veneer for "Hindu culture", but the Taj Mahal, a Mughal construction has been promoted by all Indian governments far more than any Indian temple so much so that the Taj Mahal is the first thing that comes to people's minds when they think of India. Indian cuisine (north indian cuisine) is largely Mughalai cuisine and that's what is promoted as Indian cuisine abroad, no foreigner thinks the south Indian regional cuisine or north eastern cuisine as Indian cuisine. I also think it's practically impossible to divorce one's past and culture from the present (perhaps with the exception of China who actively destroyed their cultural artefacts during the Cultural revolution), and even though Europe is multicultural today, we think white Anglo saxon culture when we think of European culture and not brown or black immigrant culture. So even if current day TN politics is probably the most secular political scene in India/subcontinent, still the emblem of the TN government is actually a temple, but it's seen as more of cultural symbolism than a religious one. In the same way, many present day European states that call themselves secular have an official state Church like the case of England or Denmark. So I don't think it's possible to divorce one's past completely from their present, in a bid to achieve complete secularism.

 

[Greenstorm]

To be completely honest, Jinnah is not really discussed in great detail in Indian book (at least it was the case when I studied school). He is known as one of the leaders of Congress, who later formed the All India Muslim League and that he fought for the cause of creating Pakistan. The ones who were really villainised were the Britishers. I remember only the British being villainised the most in Indian text books where the Indian mutiny of 1857 and how they quelled it, Jallianwala bagh massacre and things like that are discussed in detail. After that, Aurangazeb to an extent and then maybe Timur. The likes of Akbar, Shah Jahan, etc., were portrayed in very positive light. Aurangazeb is shown as the guy who imprisoned his own father, killed his brother to ascend the throne and one who reversed many of the tolerant policies of his predecessors like Akbar impacting the minorities.

I have no idea why Gandhi is the villain in Pakistani textbooks lol though given Gandhi was probably the first independence leader who lost his life for Pakistan! Godse felt Gandhi was too partial to the muslims and Pakistan (he held a hunger fast for Pakistan to get its share of revenue after partition) and listed it out as one of the main reasons for assassinating him. Similarly I don't think Jinnah would be portrayed in negative light in Bangladesh either, given he has nothing to do with what happened to them. The only part where I feel the Bengalis may have some resentment towards Jinnah was the imposition of urdu on them. Still, I don't think they would have any sort of animosity towards Jinnah.

I always thought Jinnah was a very pragmatic and practical leader personally. He thought muslims would be discriminated in a hindu majority state and so fought to create a new country for muslims, which is very fair in my opinion. My only disagreement, if any, is that in Pakistan adopting Islam as its official religion and it becoming an Islamic republic, he ended up creating a muslim majoritarian version of the discriminatory Hindu state he was running away from. Although I'm not sure if that was really his intentions though, different people have different opinions on the question whether he wanted to create a muslim majority but secular state like Turkey or an islamic religious state on the lines of Iran or Arab states minus the monarchy.

I remember reading about Gandhi's hunger strike post partition in our text book.
Overall, I don't think Gandhi is portrayed as villain. Nehru is shown negatively and righly so.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

Educated Muslims, Hindus and Christians could have peacefully co-existed with good willed politicians at the helm.

Kerala would be a good example with a population of 35 million consisting of 55% Hindus, 25% Muslims and 20% Christians and an overall level of harmony not found elsewhere in the subcontinent.

And the state producing more ISIS products than many other countries.. Lol

 

[street cricketer]

I remember reading about Gandhi's hunger strike post partition in our text book.
Overall, I don't think Gandhi is portrayed as villain. Nehru is shown negatively and righly so.

I don't think Gandhi had a negative perception among the Muhajir muslims who migrated to Pakistan during partition. Remember reading an article about Karachi mourning Gandhi's death after his assassination.

But perhaps the modern day Pakistanis have a negative perception of Gandhi because he was against the idea of the partition of India.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Just to correct on a small detail, The Two Nation theory was born in India, not Pakistan, as it was not in existence at the time.

 

[street cricketer]

And the state producing more ISIS products than many other countries.. Lol

I'm not even a malayali or Keralite, but Kerala is progressive than 99% of places in the subcontinent, when you compare their literacy rates, their maternal and infant mortality rates, poverty and most other social metrics. The differences are so drastic that you might as well think they're from a different continent. The only drawback of Kerala is that it's not economically as advanced as it should be in a state with unarguably the highest quality of human capital in the subcontinent.

 

[Cover Drive Six]

I'm not even a malayali or Keralite, but Kerala is progressive than 99% of places in the subcontinent, when you compare their literacy rates, their maternal and infant mortality rates, poverty and most other social metrics. The differences are so drastic that you might as well think they're from a different continent. The only drawback of Kerala is that it's not economically as advanced as it should be in a state with unarguably the highest quality of human capital in the subcontinent.

I am not talking about their economy.
Most radical state in India is Kerala.Highest number of ISIS recruits from Kerala.
Last year ketalite blasted Gurudwar and killed 25 sikhs in Afghanistan.

 

[street cricketer]

I am not talking about their economy.
Most radical state in India is Kerala.Highest number of ISIS recruits from Kerala.
Last year ketalite blasted Gurudwar and killed 25 sikhs in Afghanistan.

I don't know. The ISIS recruits from Kerala would not even form 0.5% of Kerala's total population. Religious radicalisation in my book is when you're so brainwashed by your religion that you commit crimes against people who are of different religion to you. So yeah, while the few Keralite muslims or converts who hopped over to Afghanistan can be classified as radicalised people, they're nonetheless fighting their battles outside our country. Those IS recruits leaving India is a few idiots less from our country as far as I'm concerned and I could care less if they get bombed to death in Afghanistan or Syria.

What I'm concerned though is when our fellow countrymen get killed because of radicalisation and I see more muslims get lynched to death in our country by hindus than the other way around. And the support for ideologies that support those lynchings are far more prevalent among hindus in our country than muslims. So if you ask me, rather than Kerala, where a very minute minority of the minority population of Kerala is radicalised, it is in states like UP, Bihar and Haryana where you come across so many of these lynching news of muslims due to the radicalisation of hindus. If we're being honest, the UP and Bihar hindus and hindus in other north indian states where muslims get lynched routinely are much more radicalised than the muslims in Kerala. I suppose that's not a popular opinion, but it is what it is.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Despite Bangladesh getting it's independence the Hindu establishment of India tried to rule by stealth and wouldn't allow the Bangladeshis to live peacefully.

Does the rejection of right wing Hindu nationalist rule by proxy via Sheikh Hasina and the overtures towards Pakistan by Bangladeshis ( despite the horror inflicted upon them during their independence struggle) show that the two nation theory was valid?

Would appreciate the thoughts of Bangladeshi posters on this particularly @sweep_shot

 

[sweep_shot]

Despite Bangladesh getting it's independence the Hindu establishment of India tried to rule by stealth and wouldn't allow the Bangladeshis to live peacefully.

Does the rejection of right wing Hindu nationalist rule by proxy via Sheikh Hasina and the overtures towards Pakistan by Bangladeshis ( despite the horror inflicted upon them during their independence struggle) show that the two nation theory was valid?

Would appreciate the thoughts of Bangladeshi posters on this particularly @sweep_shot

Two nation theory was 500% justified. There is no doubt about it despite the 1971 hiccup.

Partition was beneficial for all subcontinental Muslims including Bangladeshi Muslims and Pakistani Muslims.

Considering how modern day India treats minorities (Muslims particularly), I hope India will have another partition soon.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Two nation theory was 500% justified. There is no doubt about it despite the 1971 hiccup.

Partition was beneficial for all subcontinental Muslims including Bangladeshi Muslims and Pakistani Muslims.

Considering how modern day India treats minorities (Muslims particularly), I hope India will have another partition soon.

I support 2 nation theory, but how has Pakistan benefited from partition? Only India has benefited.
Both BD and Pakistan are failing miserably.

The only partition that is impending is the further partition of Pakistan and BD.

 

[Farhan The Man]

Two nation theory was 500% justified. There is no doubt about it despite the 1971 hiccup.

TNT states: hindu cannot coexist with muslim, but muslims can.

1971 "hiccup": muslim cannot coexist with muslim.

How is TNT 500% justified? It is 50%. Your math is off.

 

[Hitman]

TNT states: hindu cannot coexist with muslim, but muslims can.

1971 "hiccup": muslim cannot coexist with muslim.

How is TNT 500% justified? It is 50%. Your math is off.

A 'hiccup' is qualified as a raping spree of 200,000 women and slaughter of 3 million people in East Pakistan during Operation Searchlight.

Such a little 'hiccup'.​

 

[Slim]

Pakistanis and Indians are two different nations indeed with some amount of correlation due to few shared aspects of Punjabi culture and thats it.

Pakistanis have nothing in common with whole of South India that dwarfs Pakistan in population and size.

West of Pakistan has nothing in common with India, genetically and culturally.

 

[Slim]

I support 2 nation theory, but how has Pakistan benefited from partition? Only India has benefited.
Both BD and Pakistan are failing miserably.

The only partition that is impending is the further partition of Pakistan and BD.

India is not doing well either, which world do you live in? Only the rich have gotten richer.

 

[ipog]

A 'hiccup' is qualified as a raping spree of 200,000 women and slaughter of 3 million people in East Pakistan during Operation Searchlight.

Such a little 'hiccup'.​

Such is the powerful indoctrination.. ummah >>>>> everything

 

[Farhan The Man]

A 'hiccup' is qualified as a raping spree of 200,000 women and slaughter of 3 million people in East Pakistan during Operation Searchlight.

Such a little 'hiccup'.​

Halal rape.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that some Imams and Mullahs supported the rapes by the Pakistani Army and issued fatwas declaring the women war booty. A fatwa from West Pakistan during the war asserted that women taken from Bengali Hindus could be considered war booty. Those rapes apparently caused thousands of pregnancies, births of war babies, abortions, infanticide, suicide, and ostracism of the victims. This is often asserted to be one of the severest occurrences of wartime sexual violence. The atrocities ended after the December 1971 surrender of the Pakistani military and supporting Razakar militias.

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Farhan The Man]

Pakistanis and Indians are two different nations indeed with some amount of correlation due to few shared aspects of Punjabi culture and thats it.

Please.

The entire sindhi culture is hindu based.

Pioneers of indus civilization.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

The usual suspects come in with their copy pastes

 

[Slim]

A 'hiccup' is qualified as a raping spree of 200,000 women and slaughter of 3 million people in East Pakistan during Operation Searchlight.

Such a little 'hiccup'.​

Made up numbers by Indians. You seem to be very hurt while the Bangdaleshi has no issues. Why its always the Indians trying to take the burden of whole world on their shoulder?

 

[Slim]

Please.

The entire sindhi culture is hindu based.

Pioneers of indus civilization.

what part of Sindhi culture is “hindu” based. I didnt know Hindu was a culture, i thought it was a religion.

 

[smkk]

A 'hiccup' is qualified as a raping spree of 200,000 women and slaughter of 3 million people in East Pakistan during Operation Searchlight.

Such a little 'hiccup'.​

Now that Bangladesh has regained freedom from a fascist regime and her false spare of misinformation, we are going through the proper 1971 history with neutral point of view without any bias and propaganda.

We are finding many new things that shade more lights on few things that were believed to be true, but was actually false. Like how many people died in the 1971 war. The awamileague figure is 3 million, but now many people from that era is contesting this number. It was believed (and in many place documented) that total number of casualties was not in millions but in lacs, or more specifically from 200,000 to 300,000 people died in this war. Even this amount is huge and regretful but nonetheless it is not 3 millions.

It seems that Mujib who was actually not highly educated, slips this wrong figure infront of the international media in 1972, while converting 3 lacs in english metrics and wrongfully spreads this 3 millions figure in the world.

Secondly, no where it was found that 200,000 women were raped. Women were raped in 1971 war time, but the number is much more negligible than what was believed to be before. We still do not know how did this figure of 200,000 rapes spreads, but it is highly likely (and that from that era's witnesses), the final figure of raped women in 1971 may not even cross three figures. We need more investigation regarding this matter in the country though.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Most muslims would prefer to live with only Muslims and a lot of muslims who are in India only live with the other religious Indian population because they have no choice.

India missed a golden opportunity during partition, it should have been made mandatory all Muslims vacate Bharat... Bharat as a whole now would have been better off...

 

[Hitman]

Made up numbers by Indians. You seem to be very hurt while the Bangdaleshi has no issues. Why its always the Indians trying to take the burden of whole world on their shoulder?

I'm surprised you haven't claimed the entire concept of Operation Searchlight being made up by India.

 

[Farhan The Man]

what part of Sindhi culture is “hindu” based. I didnt know Hindu was a culture, i thought it was a religion.

If islam as a religion transcends to way of life, so does hindu permeate as a culture.

Nevertheless, theological debate that. We'll stick to facts.

Let's start off with the gorgeous attire of sindhi women. Certainly cannot be misjudged for the bland, black garb of arabistan. sindhis retained their hindu heritage. No amount of forced islam can bury these colorful visuals.

​

 

[Slim]

Most muslims would prefer to live with only Muslims and a lot of muslims who are in India only live with the other religious Indian population because they have no choice.

India missed a golden opportunity during partition, it should have been made mandatory all Muslims vacate Bharat... Bharat as a whole now would have been better off...

I disagree, i dont find much in common with Indian Muslims. Indian Hindus are always very quick to disown their Muslim population. Kinda embarrassing. Considering they share everything with you except religion. Culture, genealogy everything!

 

[Slim]

If islam as a religion transcends to way of life, so does hindu permeate as a culture.

Nevertheless, theological debate that. We'll stick to facts.

Let's start off with the gorgeous attire of sindhi women. Certainly cannot be misjudged for the bland, black garb of arabistan. sindhis retained their hindu heritage. No amount of forced islam can bury these colorful visuals.

View attachment 150682​

Havent interacted with you much but have observed you always post half truths and by nature are a mischievous poster.

What you are showing me is Sindhi culture, what is hindu about it? Like what even is your point? Where in Hindu religion, people are asked to wear dresses like this?

Indians are mainly Gangus, they dont even have much to do with Indus Valley Civ as most of it is in Pakistan anyway.

 

[Slim]

I'm surprised you haven't claimed the entire concept of Operation Searchlight being made up by India.

Nice attempt at strawman.

 

[Farhan The Man]

Havent interacted with you much but have observed you always post half truths and by nature are a mischievous poster.

As expected, name-calling commences when confronted with facts.

You don't have hammerlock on the narrative anymore. Get used to it.

Stop with the mislabels.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I disagree, i dont find much in common with Indian Muslims. Indian Hindus are always very quick to disown their Muslim population. Kinda embarrassing. Considering they share everything with you except religion. Culture, genealogy everything!

Perfect lets agree to disagree. .. It is in the teachings of Islam a non believer is kaffir and anyone who cannot accept Allah cannot fully be at peace with a muslim.

With all that is happening now, I fully stand with what I stated....


This is not a human or a genetical issue but purely a religious one, a foreign religion not of that land that came from the Arab lands have cause absolute mayhem and destruction in the area, look at Bangladesh and Pakistan. India would have been the same had they been a muslim majority...

 

[Slim]

As expected, name-calling commences when confronted with facts.

You don't have hammerlock on the narrative anymore. Get used to it.

Stop with the mislabels.

I answered your half truths, called you out. Maybe stop posting utter drivel.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I support 2 nation theory, but how has Pakistan benefited from partition? Only India has benefited.
Both BD and Pakistan are failing miserably.

The only partition that is impending is the further partition of Pakistan and BD.

It's quite eye opening how as soon as India's preferred leader of Bangladesh is sent packing, Indian posters have suddenly decided that they are failing, whereas previously there were threads going up how Bangladesh was booming compared to Pakistan.

 

[Slim]

Perfect lets agree to disagree. .. It is in the teachings of Islam a non believer is kaffir and anyone who cannot accept Allah cannot fully be at peace with a muslim.

With all that is happening now, I fully stand with what I stated....


This is not a human or a genetical issue but purely a religious one, a foreign religion not of that land that came from the Arab lands have cause absolute mayhem and destruction in the area, look at Bangladesh and Pakistan. India would have been the same had they been a muslim majority...

India did not even exist until the British came. Its a made up country. What are you even on about?

Religions dont have birth right to a land. All abrahamic religions come from Middle East yet Europeans claim ownership over Christianity.

I understand your resentment since Hinduism is mainly a mono ethnic religion but your view is quite myopic and out of touch.

Muslims have co-existed since Prophet’s time with other religions. Ottoman empire, Ummayyad etc. there are multiple examples.

You guys just cannot tolerate your Muslim population because it is a constant reminder of your religion’s failure - its irrelevancy in today’s world, the failure of your claimed ancestors to fight back the so called invaders.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Perfect lets agree to disagree. .. It is in the teachings of Islam a non believer is kaffir and anyone who cannot accept Allah cannot fully be at peace with a muslim.

With all that is happening now, I fully stand with what I stated....


This is not a human or a genetical issue but purely a religious one, a foreign religion not of that land that came from the Arab lands have cause absolute mayhem and destruction in the area, look at Bangladesh and Pakistan. India would have been the same had they been a muslim majority...

I don't usually like to talk about religions in detail, but this sort of stuff can only really be judged if we compare to the religion people converted from in the subcontinent, which was Hinduism mostly. Caste division and burning widows on the death of their husbands was common at that time. You talk about the teachings of Islam, are you as prepared to discuss the teachings of Hinduism which might give some background as to the growth of Islam and Christianity in the subcontinent?

 

[Farhan The Man]

You guys just cannot tolerate your Muslim population...

muslims in west pakistan also couldn't tolerate muslims in east pakistan.

muslims in iraq/turkey/iran/syria also cannot tolerate muslims in kurdistan.

sunni/shia muslims in pakistan also resort to mass murder due to intolerance. A'la parachinar.

What gives?

 

[Slim]

I don't usually like to talk about religions in detail, but this sort of stuff can only really be judged if we compare to the religion people converted from in the subcontinent, which was Hinduism mostly. Caste division and burning widows on the death of their husbands was common at that time. You talk about the teachings of Islam, are you as prepared to discuss the teachings of Hinduism which might give some background as to the growth of Islam and Christianity in the subcontinent?

Exactly, Islam is the most evolved religion if we look purely at the religious teachings. And another thing i found hilarious was him attributing Islam to “destruction” in Pakistan and Bangladesh as if India is a first world country? India is literally equally worse with an exploding population with high youth unmployment, massive income gap betwen rich and average folks, ethnic strife, rape capital etc.

Romali lives in his own bubble and completely out of depth.

 

[Slim]

muslims in west pakistan also couldn't tolerate muslims in east pakistan.

muslims in iraq/turkey/iran/syria also cannot tolerate muslims in kurdistan.

sunni/shia muslims in pakistan also resort to mass murder due to intolerance. A'la parachinar.

What gives?

before you post more half truths, answer your rubbish about Sindhi culture being “hindu”

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Exactly, Islam is the most evolved religion if we look purely at the religious teachings. And another thing i found hilarious was him attributing Islam to “destruction” in Pakistan and Bangladesh as if India is a first world country? India is literally equally worse with an exploding population with high youth unmployment, massive income gap betwen rich and average folks, ethnic strife, rape capital etc.

Romali lives in his own bubble and completely out of depth.

He lives in his own bubble...in Australia. That should tell you quite a lot about the reality of booming India.