So in other words, it was all about economic disparity (or fear of it), which lead to division / demand for division. Then where came the division based on religion. Its very tricky situation to determine nation / nationality, when both countries inherited sizable minorities on the eve of independence.
As you mentioned you don't like 2 nations theory (you have got the reason for dislike. May be practical aspects or how it was misused after independence. Many Muslim writers from India state that they were cheated by Mr Jinah to put them in more critical condition. Molana Azad's speech at Jama Masjid Delhi just after partition represents such sentiments of being cheated. You may refer to Rafiq Zakaria's book 'The man who divided India', though I found him biased at some places of the book.
And your point is???
My dear brother you look like the bewildered kid who suddenly finds Santa is not real and starts crying his eyes out.
Political and religious narratives are continuous made, and modified. Get over it. Believe me your forefathers were not happy with a United India every either, hence they voted for Jinnah, under whatever pretext. Now start making some effort for the country you have rather than trying to resynthsize narratives. KE youN hota tu Kya hota.
And your point is???
My dear brother you look like the bewildered kid who suddenly finds Santa is not real and starts crying his eyes out.
Political and religious narratives are continuous made, and modified. Get over it. Believe me your forefathers were not happy with a United India every either, hence they voted for Jinnah, under whatever pretext. Now start making some effort for the country you have rather than trying to resynthsize narratives. KE youN hota tu Kya hota.
I think you need to make up your mind. You don't like 2 nations theory, you don't like alternatives to it. I didn't give my comments on it. I just mention the complexity of issue (partition based on 2 nations theory with both countries inheriting in sizable minorities) in my first post in this thread.
As far as my forefathers are concerned, they struggled for separation of Sindh from Bombay presidency, way before Pakistan resolution. They didn't vote for discriminatory 2 nations theory, as Sindh is the last province, where minorities had to opt for migration (6 months after partition to be precise and that too after state supported riots).
As far as efforts for country, how about talking truth to coming generations?
You might need to recheck your facts as to whom Sindh voted for. Discrimination existed prior to partition, it was the result of it and not the cause. Read the book of Moulana Azad, he himself recounts how Hinduistic Congress had become. It was Gandhi who brought religion into politics. We should strive that our minorities don't get discriminated against, rather than self blame on partition.
I'm not blaming partition. I'm just commenting how the 2 nations theory was later reinvented for vested interests. I agree with Hoodbhoy to the extent that we need to reconsider basis of a separate country (that should be more of economic disparity rather than a simplistic version of 2 nations theory taught in our schools.. wo gae ki pooja karte he, hum uska gosht khate hain type filth).
You shud understand the context in which the two nation theory was used. Congress wanted to negotiate with British on behalf of all Indians and propagated itself as representative of all sects, casts and creed, while it catered to emotions and interests on Hindus. There is ample proof of it. Muslims felt marginalized and wanted to negotiate a better deal on behalf of muslims. Two nation theory was a counter argument to congress hegemony.
I am disappointed in hoodbhouy, PD and muqawwee. Get above your prejudices when judging a matter for Gods sake.
1- For Hoodbhouy to question the fairness of judicial process and then call the hanged people "war criminals" is hypocritical.
2- You don't have to bring a sham trial to write about your convictions, that's a shaky ground to start.
3- And what has two nation theory got to do with a sham trial.
4- Those people who sided with Pakiatan in 1971 cannot and should not be hanged for their beliefs, as long as there is no evidence that they committed a crime.
sorry for disappointing you!
but i never said i agreed with hoodbhoy's thesis. please read my opening post.
on your point 4, bhai jan there were thousands of bangalis who had sympathies with pakistan and i doubt hasina wajod is hanging all of them...afterall thousands of biharis are still living in camps in bangaldesk and they are not being hanged.
she is going after those who were actively involved in fighting against bangalis and mukti bhani side by side pakistani army.
so now lets take this debate to second level. bangalis who fought along with Pakistani army in 1971 were our friends but they were traitors for bangalis....bangalis won the war and hence Bangaldesh had a right to act against them...just like Americans and brits acted against german nazis and believe me had germans won the war, they would have hanged Americans for human crimes... that is the norm. so you are wrong in saying bangladesh shd not have acted against those folks who fought against bangalis. kiyon bhai?
now why are bangalis acting after so many years is a separate question...and that is where i completely disagree with hasina wajid. she is a total disaster. there are not enough proofs left and hence sham trials. BD shd have acted right after 1971 not 50 years later
maybe 2 nation theory was ok 70 years ago, but not anymore
outside pakistan, you cannot even explain 2 nation theory in today's multi-cultural, diverse, and connected world....you will be embarrassed to death. how will you explain to a common European or american 2 nation theory which was based on premises that we muslims cannot live together with hindus because we have nothing in common and that is why we need a separate land....
barring bigots, today's model is based upon multi-multiculturalism, diversity, and cultural acceptance and two nation theory negates all of this..how can a Pakistani living in the US or UK defend 2 nation theory when he himself demands Westerns to accept him, absorb him, respect him, and let him live with jews, hindus and Christians peacefully?
And we're those civilians responsible for actions of Bhutto and his daddy? Biharis were citizens and under the law eligible to protection.
Breakup pf India was pretty natural. In most of its history it consisted of many states.
In some other thread I have already mentioned that ZAB played a negative role. He should not have been party to dictator. It would have been better if he would have asked the then military commander to hand over power to Sh Mujib. I am 100% sure that the arrogant Yahya Khan would have never accepted that and breakup was inevitable. A great mistake was committed by the founder by accepting Pakistan in such a state. He could have bargained former East Bengal with Kashmir as Kashmir was more aligned with West Pakistan's culture than East Bengal 1000 miles away. 'taluq rog ban jai to us ko torhna behtar'.
Breakup of India was not natural. British rulers did not want to leave India intact. They created hatred among different people who lived in peace since centuries and continued their colonial policy of divide and rule by this unholy division.
maybe 2 nation theory was ok 70 years ago, but not anymore
outside pakistan, you cannot even explain 2 nation theory in today's multi-cultural, diverse, and connected world....you will be embarrassed to death. how will you explain to a common European or american 2 nation theory which was based on premises that we muslims cannot live together with hindus because we have nothing in common and that is why we need a separate land....
barring bigots, today's model is based upon multi-multiculturalism, diversity, and cultural acceptance and two nation theory negates all of this..how can a Pakistani living in the US or UK defend 2 nation theory when he himself demands Westerns to accept him, absorb him, respect him, and let him live with jews, hindus and Christians peacefully?
Two nation theory was complete failure when bigger half of Pakistan parted away in 1971.
maybe 2 nation theory was ok 70 years ago, but not anymore
outside pakistan, you cannot even explain 2 nation theory in today's multi-cultural, diverse, and connected world....you will be embarrassed to death. how will you explain to a common European or american 2 nation theory which was based on premises that we muslims cannot live together with hindus because we have nothing in common and that is why we need a separate land....
barring bigots, today's model is based upon multi-multiculturalism, diversity, and cultural acceptance and two nation theory negates all of this..how can a Pakistani living in the US or UK defend 2 nation theory when he himself demands Westerns to accept him, absorb him, respect him, and let him live with jews, hindus and Christians peacefully?
so you still believe that condemning killing makes sense only if two nation theory is relevant?
Scotland independence move failure and brexit dont have anything to do with religion but there are economy and nationalism reasons. Being culturally diverse is almost a disadvantage so never a binding force you like it or not. In pakistan binding is not two nation theory but power that is with military. If PPP knew that they would be at great benefit after separating sindh they would join separatists. So in a nutshell binding force is economic interests and nationalism as religion is far from todays muslim.
maybe 2 nation theory was ok 70 years ago, but not anymore
outside pakistan, you cannot even explain 2 nation theory in today's multi-cultural, diverse, and connected world....you will be embarrassed to death. how will you explain to a common European or american 2 nation theory which was based on premises that we muslims cannot live together with hindus because we have nothing in common and that is why we need a separate land....
barring bigots, today's model is based upon multi-multiculturalism, diversity, and cultural acceptance and two nation theory negates all of this..how can a Pakistani living in the US or UK defend 2 nation theory when he himself demands Westerns to accept him, absorb him, respect him, and let him live with jews, hindus and Christians peacefully?
You are the ones embarassed bcoz you have not read your own hisotry. For Gods sake understand the context in which the two nation theory was used. It does not by any means suggest that people with different religions cannot live together. It was a counter narrative to Congress's narrative. Congress propagated itslef as the sole representative of all Indians and negotiate with British raj on their behalf, while catering to interests of hindus. We tried to negotiate with Congress a single country where rights of muslims will be safegaurded constitutionally but they were not willing to do that. It was not muslims who brought religion into politics, on the contrary it was Gandhi who id it. He refused repeated pledges by Jinnah to sort out the problems between two communities.
And why do you have such an inferiority complex from British or US, at the time of creation of Pakistan in 1947, they were treating blacks like untouchables, British were responsible for hundreds and thousands of deaths in famine.
It also cemented that one nation theory was farce, since BD did not join India.
India really does not need that as long as it is one of its greatest ally. Bengali Hindu live in peace in Bangladesh. They were severely persecuted when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan.
You are the ones embarassed bcoz you have not read your own hisotry. For Gods sake understand the context in which the two nation theory was used. It does not by any means suggest that people with different religions cannot live together. It was a counter narrative to Congress's narrative. Congress propagated itslef as the sole representative of all Indians and negotiate with British raj on their behalf, while catering to interests of hindus. We tried to negotiate with Congress a single country where rights of muslims will be safegaurded constitutionally but they were not willing to do that. It was not muslims who brought religion into politics, on the contrary it was Gandhi who id it. He refused repeated pledges by Jinnah to sort out the problems between two communities.
And why do you have such an inferiority complex from British or US, at the time of creation of Pakistan in 1947, they were treating blacks like untouchables, British were responsible for hundreds and thousands of deaths in famine.
i know my history very well and happy to lecture you or debate if we ever meet in person. I said in my post that 2 nation theory may be valid 70 years ago for the same reasons that you mentioned (with some reservations) but not anymore in today's world, so we should stop insisting on this theory as cornerstone of our foundation ...we shd stop teaching this theory to our kids and new generation because it will confuse them to no end. it does not fit anywhere in today's global world
and pls dont play inferiority complex card....i am giving us and UK example to make a point because most of Pakistanis are living in europe and usa and love and enjoy diversity and multicultural aspects of these socities but then they also love 2 nation theory as well! i find it hypocritical.
so you still believe that condemning killing makes sense only if two nation theory is relevant?
Scotland independence move failure and brexit dont have anything to do with religion but there are economy and nationalism reasons. Being culturally diverse is almost a disadvantage so never a binding force you like it or not. In pakistan binding is not two nation theory but power that is with military. If PPP knew that they would be at great benefit after separating sindh they would join separatists. So in a nutshell binding force is economic interests and nationalism as religion is far from todays muslim.
i am not a very smart guy with a limited IQ...so i fail to understand your point in context of this thread. my apologies.
i am not a very smart guy with a limited IQ...so i fail to understand your point in context of this thread. my apologies.
Sir aap thread ka title hi two nation theory rakhtay so koe aap se JI leaders ki killings k baray poochta hi na. Aur aap jo pyaray se mazmoon suna rhay han na multi cultural acceptance k oon mai kuch concrete nae ha. All the fuss that political parties throw at each other is because of cultural differences as they play ethnic cards. You have the courage to speak against foundation which you say is two nation theory but shy to accept that is it is cultural diversity that is keeping us behind the world. Those who believe religious ideologies can be challenged should be tolerant to the discussion of cultural differences just like we discuss sectarian differences.
India really does not need that as long as it is one of its greatest ally. Bengali Hindu live in peace in Bangladesh. They were severely persecuted when Bangladesh was part of Pakistan.
Whether it needs it or not, the Bengal remains divided on religious lines. That proves India was not a single entity and will never be a single entity. Sindhi Muslims also felt their rights were not safeguarded under Hindu rule and rallied behind Jinnah. But we know have people who like lazy offsprings blame their fathers, Abba Jee koi dhang Ka kaam kar lete tu zindagi achi guzar jati
i know my history very well and happy to lecture you or debate if we ever meet in person. I said in my post that 2 nation theory may be valid 70 years ago for the same reasons that you mentioned (with some reservations) but not anymore in today's world, so we should stop insisting on this theory as cornerstone of our foundation ...we shd stop teaching this theory to our kids and new generation because it will confuse them to no end. it does not fit anywhere in today's global world
and pls dont play inferiority complex card....i am giving us and UK example to make a point because most of Pakistanis are living in europe and usa and love and enjoy diversity and multicultural aspects of these socities but then they also love 2 nation theory as well! i find it hypocritical.
Habibi f it was valid 70 years ago then it has served its purpose. And yes can explain that to ur British or American friends without being embarrassed. As for now, mankind is in process of evolution, new narratives, paradigms, social contracts are made all the time.
Our textbooks are evolving as well, the one. Ones now are different than those 20 years ago and are more tolerant. With time these will change. On the other hand textbooks in India are being re written on communal lines. People is busy checking biryani meat to see if it's cow or mutton. Shows fear of majority was not so unfounded.
Habibi f it was valid 70 years ago then it has served its purpose. And yes can explain that to ur British or American friends without being embarrassed. As for now, mankind is in process of evolution, new narratives, paradigms, social contracts are made all the time.
Our textbooks are evolving as well, the one. Ones now are different than those 20 years ago and are more tolerant. With time these will change. On the other hand textbooks in India are being re written on communal lines. People is busy checking biryani meat to see if it's cow or mutton. Shows fear of majority was not so unfounded.
i dont care what is india doing...if they are doing bad, they will suffer. i care abt pakistan first, and if our text books are indeed evolving, and if our establishment and academic narrative is indeed based on plurality, diversity, cultural acceptance, and equal rights for everyone regardless of his or her religious background and more importantly if our establishment is actually practicing this narrative, then there is no room for debate whatsoever.
now you have assured me that is indeed the case in our payaray pakistan, so great, we agree. no difference.
Hanging very old militants of Al Shams Al Badar is not pleasant.
Bangladesh holds the right to punish war criminal but those were forgiven by Mujeeb and were the part of previous government.