According to ‘two nation theory’, Muslims and Hindus of British India were two separate nations, withtheir own customs, religion, and traditions; therefore, from social and moral points of view, Muslims were to have their own separate homeland outside of Hindu-majority India, one in which Islam was the dominant religion. Politically also Indian Muslims were to have some land area from British India where they could be their political masters. There was nothing bad about this theory. And Pakistan was created for that only. But independent India remained in denial mode since 1947 about the ‘two nation theory’.
Even after the partition of British India in 1947, the question of if Hindus and Muslims are separate nations has been cropping-up off and on in India. The liberation of Bangladesh from Islamic Pakistan in 1971 made many Indian intellectuals to claim that the ‘two nation theory’ on the basis of religion (Islam) had failed. But Bangladesh did not merge with secular India and maintained its independent Islamic character, which gave birth to ‘three nation theory’.
Indian Left-Liberal-Islamist intellectuals get unnecessarily hyper-excited to nullify ‘two nation theory’. They have been blaming Savarkar, RSS, and Hindu Mahasabha for pushing two nation theory. They selectively forget that in the deciding decade of 1938 to 1947, Indian National Congress and Indian Muslim League were the only two major political forces in India with whom British government negotiated. Savarkar, RSS, and Hindu Mahasabha were fringe forces to be reckon with.
However, each of the three types of Indian intellectuals has their own compulsion and agenda in this question. Leftist intellectuals cultivate a disruptive and anarchic ideology. They fish in muddy water and their stand of negating the ‘two nation theory’ helps to transform Indian Muslims into victims of the same ‘two nation theory’, as if their grandfathers were never responsible for partition of India. This in turn helps to widen the religious fault line between Indian Hindus and Muslims to serve Leftist interest. But funnily enough, it was the Communist Party of India which before 1947 pleaded with British for the creation of Islamic Pakistan before the transfer of power.
The Indian Liberal intellectuals have been up and doing to present them as the epitome of magnanimity. They derive intellectual orgasm by labeling the ‘two nation theory’ as RSS work and stand before the Indian Muslims as their messiah. If they can negate the ‘two nation theory’, majority of Indian Muslims will be absolved from the sin of their grandfathers who fought for division of India and creation of Islamic Pakistan, but did not migrate to Pakistan after 1947.
Indian Islamist intellectuals try to establish their moral and ethical claim on India by denying ‘two nation theory’. Every Indian Islamist now claims that his grandfather fought for freedom of unified India. Funnily, these Islamists now even show love and respect for ‘Hindu’ Gandhi and his philosophy. This makes one to wonder that in spite of so many Gandhi following Muslims in British India in 1940s, who demanded and forced British to create Islamic Pakistan?
People of Pakistan and Pakistani intellectuals, on the other hand, don’t give a damn about this Indian stupidity. They proudly claim to have extracted Islamic Pakistan from the jaws of Hindu Congress Party of British India. They are proud of their Quaid-e-Azam, who single handedly created Islamic Pakistan for the Muslims of British India as Riyasat-e-Medina. Bangladesh, too, is cold about the hyper-excitement of Indian intellectuals about the so-called failure of ‘two nation theory’.
Today, India is mainly inhabited by majority Hindu (79.8%) and second majority Muslim (14.2%) people. Both together constitute about 84 percent of India’s population. During 1941 census of British India, Muslims constituted 24.3 percent of total population. With that numerical strength, Indian Muslim League fought and got India divided to create Islamic Pakistan for the Muslims of the then British India.
The ‘two nation theory’ was first conceptualized by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan in 1866 in a speech in Meerut (India) and then it got momentum through Allama Iqbal (1930), Rahmat Ali (1933), Lahore Resolution (1940), Direct Action Day (1946) and translated into fact on 14 August 1947. Jinnah spearheaded Pakistan Movement between 1940 and 1947. In 1930s and 1940s while Savarkar was promoting Hindu India, Dr Ambedkar accepted the inherent incompatibility of Muslims to accept India as their motherland. However, Indian Muslim League was under no obligation to follow Savarkar or Dr Ambedkar as obedient pupil. Practically speaking, ‘two nation theory’ was Muslim League’s child only. Indian Muslim League, like the Communist Party of India, never fought for independence of India. Both fought for creation of Islamic Pakistan.
We can understand the developments leading to partition of British India and the present situation in India if we look at the definition of ‘nation’. “A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or territory.” While Indian Muslims have psychological attachment with Urdu, Arabic and Farsi languages; Indian Hindus are proud of their languages of Indic origin. The main religious scripture of Muslims is in Arabic, but Hindu scriptures are in Sanskrit language.
Coming to history, Muslim history in India centers on Arab, Turkic, Mughal, Afghan and Persian invasions / rule of India from eighth century AD to mid eighteenth century AD. But the history of Hindus goes back to about ten thousand years in the past with distinctly different achievements and narratives. To Hindus, Muslim invasions and rules are reminders of oppressions, plunders and destructions Hindu civilization and can’t be overstressed as Hindu history.
From the view point of ethnicity, almost all Muslims and Hindus of India are same. But a section of Muslims feels proud of their claimed out-of-India ethnic stock. Though both the communities share the same territory, culturally they are from diagonally opposite poles. Indian Muslims are very particular to maintain their distinct cultural identity. Inter-community marriage has never been commonplace in India. As per Sharia, if a Hindu girl has to marry a Muslim boy, she has to convert to Islam before marriage. Again if a Muslim girl is to marry a Hindu boy, the boy should convert to Islam before marriage. It is “heads I win, tails you lose” for Muslims.
Islamic concept of Ummah is very weird to Hindus. Hindus don’t understand how, as per Islamic traditions, sovereignty of Ummah can rest with Allah? The Islamic concept of Dar-al-Harb is also abusive to Hindus. As per Islamic teaching, Indian Muslims can feel closer to Muslims of other countries than Hindus of India. Brotherhood in Islam is restricted among Muslims alone. Concept of Kafir and Jihad, despite international white washing, is dangerous to Hindus. Demographic explosion of Indian Muslims is another disturbing point for Indian Hindus now. In recent time terms like ‘love jihad’, ‘land jihad’ and ‘halal jihad’ are causing tension in Indian Hindus.
V S Naipaul the Nobel laureate said, “Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story.
The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.”
The fact of the matter is Hindus and Muslims are separate nations and never the twain shall meet. Yes, a few exceptions can be found here and there. But exception is never an example. In India, both communities have developed some sort of working relationship only which can’t be termed as one nation. Indian National Congress was solely responsible for not allowing the integration of Indian Muslims with majority Hindus. During post-1947 era, Congress was extra careful to maintain the separate identity of Indian Muslims. This has boomeranged in Indian politics gradually. Now, denying the ‘two nation theory’ is an excuse for Indian Left-Liberal-Islamist cabal to justify and sanctify the presence of tens of millions of Muslims in present day India in spite of creation of Pakistan for them seventy-three years back.
