From its birth as ‘an Islamic home’ in South Asia to its present asymmetries, former foreign minister Jaswant Singh extends themes tossed up by a new book on Pakistan
Stephen Philip Cohen, in The Idea of Pakistan, cites Al-Biruni as a source of ideas for Jinnah and Field Marshal Ayub Khan. This intrigued me. What did this illustrious contemporary of the great Ibu-i-Sina (Avicenna) write such as to influence two very different personages? Al-Biruni’s India is admittedly one of the most penetrative accounts of Indian society, but a society of the 11th century, not the 20th.
There were a lot of people (pre and post Partition of India) who might have read Al-Biruni or Ibn-i-Sina, but Jinnah and Ayub were not two of them. I can bet my ass on that.
The Idea of Pakistan was basically the fear that Hindus are not capable of rulling such a huge number of inhabitants and might go blank in short time....
Reasons :
Hindus never ruled such a big land with such a big population
Narrow minded-ness was apparent in hindus at that time. Treatment of lower caste was
an eye opener.
If there was no partitian at the time of independence, I believe that subcontinent could not have survived beyond 60s as one country and would have disintegrated into some half
a dozen independent countries.
The secular revolution in india and tollerance for other religions was direct result of partitian, which gave some sense to hindu leadership to do something in order to save it happening in future.
^ some of that is true...although not the last bit. At the time of independence India was a secular country. some more food for thought, hindus rules from western coast of India all the way to thailand, Indonesia for over 3 centuries, Chola empire.. different cultures, different lands etc. Narrow mindedness is a relative term...Hindus are narrowminded and evil..yup that is true..but they also were neighbors and friends to the most number of religions..mostly outcasts at the hand sof islamic hordes, from jews, to buddhists, to parsis etc.
It is funny to me that no where, where muslims are in a sizeable minority there is peace. Why is that? What is it wihtin the fibers of their construct that they cannot live in peace as a minority? All around the world...from the phillpines to India to Russian republics to china to thailan..you name it. Whereever muslims are in a minority there are problems. Could narrowmindedness, inability to establish proper governance and the disdain at their current position, inability to assimilate, etc.. are these the driving factors?
Matsui, I agree with most of what you have said. My problem is not why India was partitioned, but why can’t the two people sit down and talk about prosperous future for both countries. What was done was a mistake (and a terrible mistake), but what will become can be a shake off and liberation (of minds, bodies and souls). Yaar there’s no place on this planet that I love more than I love India. I want to live in Delhi and die in Benares.
There are many theories on the causes of partition but the bottom line is that WE were divided and someone came & ruled on us that made us bitterly divided.
Madhanee, there is so much more in common between these two peoples than not. It is a common history, a common culture, a common religion, common arts, common music and common lifestyles. Where it differs is this idiotic perception of who ruled who, who deserves what etc. Common muslim even under the mughals was a poor, dirty, socially and economically limited person. Just like his hindu counterpart. These theories of some golden age or superior lifestyle and by gone riches and social standing are ridiculous....and to leverage those to mark terretories is even more ridiculous. But where we are is where Ahmadjee puts it nicely...two people, two lands...two paths towards livelihood...it shouldn't be a competition unless someone makes it one. At that point we can place our bets.
Hi guys, I am new to the forum but here is my 2 cents. The source is pakistani so we should realize that it can be biased and is stated completely from pakistan point of view. But this is what we were taught in our Pakistan Studies classes. Even my Indian friends have their own version of story which they were taught in their classes in India. This theory forms the idealogy of Pakistan
**What is Two Nation Theory?
Two-Nation theory is the basis of creation of Pakistan. It states that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations from every definition; therefore Muslims should have a separate homeland in the Muslim majority areas of India, where they can spend their lives according to the glorious teachings of Islam.
If Muslims of the sub-continent comprise an Islamic nation then they have the right to have separate homeland as Muhammad Ali Jinnah, (in his address to the annual session of Muslim League) mentioned and I quote:
“History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, of Czechoslovakia and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many seven or eight sovereign states. Like-wise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula.” ** Two Nation Theory
there is no idelogy of pakistan since it does not represent south asian muslims
only represents punjabi muslims. if you gather all muslims of southasia in one place
leaders wont be punjabis.
mate you forgot sindhi, baluchi, pathan, mohajirs, other muslims too who are in pakistan. We are talking about initial Idealogy of Pakistan. The fact remains that it was supposed to be created for all the muslims of sub-continent. Now how far it has accomplished this ideology is still a debatable topic
Anywhere in the world, there are two requirements before a separation/ partition takes place:
a) A group of people feel (or are led to believe) that they are receiving (or will receive in the future) the wrong end of the stick
AND
b) this group of people occupies a dominant position in certain geographies (of the whole)
Both these conditions are absolutely essential. Take the case of dalits in India. Even Indians would admit that they have been a disadvantaged lot. Has that led to a 'Dalitistan' in spite of them being a quarter of the population along with the tribes? No, simply because they are spread all over the country.
Take the case of, say Tamil Nadu. The tamils are a dominant 95% of the population in TN. Has that automatically led to a separation in spite of the differences in language, culture, food habits, etc.? No, because the population did not believe that they were receiving the wrong end of the sticks in spite of the efforts made by certain groups to mislead them. Heck, they even celebrate deepavali for the wrong reasons, a day earlier than the rest of the country!!!
Thus, both the conditions are essential for a separation.
With no religion/ culture/nationhood blinkers on, ponder over this:
Would the partition have happened if the muslim population had been distributed all across the country with no muslim majorities in the Punjab and Bengal, even if the muslim proportion had been higher than what it was in 1947?
That is so true. Jinnah was a westernized person, having no inspiration and liking for islamic history. He became staunch muslim only in political terms, to get a good political standing.
Ayub, being in the UK-trained army, would be much like Jinnah. He was rumored to be a heavy drinker and womanizer.
You left out cunning bania part.
Partition was just a power game. Egoistic Jinnah knew that in united democratic India he was unlikely to have any power, hence the partition. The fact that after partition, there were more muslims in India than today’s Pakistan pretty much disproved the notion that hindus and muslims were different people and that “all” of muslims desired separate nations. After 1971, any doubts were put to the rest.
It is amazing that a grandson(mr poonja aka Jinnah) of former hindu-bania vazir of Nawab of Junagarh and grandson of kashmiri brahmin(mr. Sapru aka Allama Iqbal) were responsible for creating a separe homeland for some of the Indian muslims! How narrow minded and cunning are this hindus!
I guess this point is altogether against democracy.
It is a social problem. It even exists amongst muslims, even panjabis have kammi zaat. Important thing is that how state treats ppl. Social differences take time to disappear
There r still diverse population and ethinic ppl in India, and it didnt disintegrate, and yes, Pakistan has. if u dont treat ppl with respect, they would seperate. Simple !
Congress was socialist and secular from day one. All its leaders were, including Molana Azad and Nehru. It was not in reaction to what happened in 1947. Any party representing India, had to be secular. Even BJP had to tone down its rhetoric when it ruled India for years.
Even my Indian friends have their own version of story which they were taught in their classes in India. This theory forms the idealogy of Pakistan