Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Quaide-Azam's Death Anniversary: Is Two Nation Theory Dead?










Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Jaswant Lauds Jinnah

Are Muslims Better Off in Jinnah's Pakistan?

Comparing Pakistan and Bangladesh

Is This a 1971 moment in Pakistan's History?

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

Global Firepower

Jinnah's Pakistan Booms Amidst Doom and Gloom

Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah's Vision of Pakistan

India Wins Freedom by Maulana Azad

Ayesha Jalal Taking On Pakistan's Hero

The Poor Neighbor by William Dalrymple

Iqbal and Jinnah


Hasan said...

Up till now it looks quite logical that the two nation theory & the Pakistan resolution hold good. This would have not been the case if the people of East Bengal would have struggled for a Bangladesh including west Bengal which did not happen in 1971. According to this analysis, the people of Bangladesh should have maintained Quaid-e-Azam as their hero & supported the formation of Pakistan in 1947, but unfortunately this did not happen.Even in the future they can realize this & correct their mistake. The two nation theory will however blow off if the movements like sindhu desh, greater pakhtoonistan & greater Baluchistan get strong & succeed....

Riaz Haq said...


Had the 1971 creation of Bangladesh been amicable and a loose federation or confederation maintained with Pakistan, Bangladeshis would have had a different view of Pakistan and Quaid-e-Azam. Even so, I think a large segment of Bangladeshis and Pakistanis have a soft corner in their hearts for each other.

As to the independence movements you mention in Sindh and Balochistan, I see these movements as insignificant relative to the strength of the federal government and the broad popular support for the federation of Pakistan after the 18th amendment. I think the chances of any break-up of Pakistan into smaller units appear remote.

Hasan said...

You are perfectly right, but the rulers after the Quaid, specially those after 1958 treated Pakistan as a unified state instead of a federation (Even a confederation was allowable as mentioned in Pakistan resolution) and did not do justice with the people of east Pakistan even as a part of a unified state which resulted in movement leading to their separation from Pakistan. They, instead of giving them their rights treated them as traitors. So the idea of a loose confederation was not possible in 1971. After the recognition of Bangladesh, Mr. Bhutto could have attempted on these lines, but he rejected such proposals by saying that a Unified state is the easiest to govern, a federal more difficult & a confederation most difficult to run. My point was that now after more than 40 years when no such attempt of forming a confederation is possible, the leaders of Bangladesh should at least accept the two nation theory & formation of Pakistan & regard Quaid-e-Azam as their hero, and regard only his successors at fault & responsible for their grievances which resulted in their separation from Pakistan

Riaz Haq said...


The violence so embittered the two sides that the idea of even a loose confederation was not feasible post-1971.

As to injustice with East Pakistan, the facts indicate otherwise.


Here are some figures from Economist magazine's EIU 2013:





3. In 1947, East Pakistan started with a lower economic base than West Pakistan, and the loss of its Hindu Bengali business elite in 1947 left it worse off. It also didn't have the benefit of the large number ofMuslim businessmen who migrated to West Pakistan, particularly Karachi, after partition of India in 1947.


Anonymous said...

How will the muslims in India look at 2 nation theory? Two nation theory did not consider muslims scattered all over India and just went after creating two populous regions independent.
A theory which did not consider anything for 150 million muslims living in India.
In fact two nation theory has been the worst thing which could have happened to muslims of the United India. Muslims are devided now in 3 countries.
Dont you think had they been united they could have got better deal than whatver is today.

Today only Punjab and Sindh,Karachi and Dhakka are prosperous but rest muslims of entire subcontinent are still struggling.

With regards to Pakistan being better on the poverty index, majority population of pakistan is living along indus(one of the most fertile and prosperous belt of resources). Compare your punjab to Indian punjab you will find similar prosperity. Compare port cities of India to Karachi you will find similar prosperity. When comparing India and Pakistan you are comparing apples with oranges. Each state of India has a different economy due to geography which is same for hundreds of years.
Bangladesh is sitting most resourceful belt but couldnt progress much because the key trading and business communities left along with Education driven economical culture which is still there in West Bengal even with large number of Muslim population. West bengal is still one of better off state on India due to port and economy.

Riaz Haq said...

Anon: "Today only Punjab and Sindh,Karachi and Dhakka are prosperous but rest muslims of entire subcontinent are still struggling"


West Bengal, too, fares much worse than Pakistan, according to this report. West Bengal's poverty rate is about twice that of Pakistan's.

Anonymous said...

Again you are comparing Population of Punjab and sindh which is 90 percent of pakistan to whole of India.

My point is punjab and sindh has been rich agricultural belts for centuries even before independence. Poverty was already very low.

India has rich belts across all river basins where agriculture has boomed due to water availability.

Poverty is in dry regions of vidarbha, telangana, MP, rajasthan, Northeast where no rich agri belts exist.

Pakistan has definitely done very good progress in industries in Punjab and sindh.

What lacks in your analysis is whether pakistan has turned around any regions which were in dark in last 65 years?

Poor belts in Balochistan, FATA and gilgit baltistan still there. They are still poor and lack resources due to geography.

In India nobody compares Punjab to Rajasthan because of geography. Same way no comparison can be done of himalayan states to Rich ganges basins.

Orissa has large tribal belts and huge minerals but it is not compared with gujarat.

My point is when you put figures it doesn't tell you complete story.

You are a very good analyst and have collected good material which I can call a very good inventory for the policymakers and every critical piece must analysed.

Mayraj said...

"Mr. Modi’s political sense was on display at the very first rally on his nomination as the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. Addressing ex-servicemen at Rewari he laid out his security agenda that would no doubt have been music to the ears of the gathering. Declaring an intent to make Pakistan behave, China back off, the civilian defence sector deliver and have the coffers cough up ‘one rank one pension’, he suggested that since all this would require a ‘strong’ leader, he was the best man for the job. Missed in the deconstruction of his speech has been the more significant aspect: that of politicisation of the military."
Modi And The Military: Not Quite An Innocent Beginning

Riaz Haq said...


Riaz Haq said...


Riaz Haq said...

People often compare Balochistan with East Pakistan. Balochistan has nothing in common with East Pakistan.

1. Only a third of the population of Balochistan is Balochi speaking. The Baloch Nationalists are too few number, highly disorganized and deeply divided among themselves. They are no more than a nuisance that Pak military can effectively handle. Besides, almost as many ethnic Baloch people live outside of Balochistan province (in Sindh and Southern Punjab) as in Balochistan, according to Anatol Lieven(Pakistan-A Hard Country)....and they are quite well integrated with the rest of the population in Pakistan. Asif Zardari, the current president of Pakistan, is an ethnic Baloch, as was former President Farooq Laghari and recent interim Prime Minister Mir Hazar Khan Khoso. Pakistan's COAS Gen Musa was a Hazara from Balochistan.


3. East Pakistan was split by an outright foreign invasion which is highly unlikely to happen to nuclear-armed Pakistan.

4. Retired US Army Col Ralph Peters is a CIA guy who knows a lot of Balochistan. Here's an excerpt of a Huffington Post Op Ed on Baloch insurgents:







Riaz Haq said...










Riaz Haq said...














Riaz Haq said...




3. Modi’s landslide has validated TNT yet again.


Riaz Haq said...

MQM Leader Altaf Hussain:

"The division of the Indian sub-continent was the biggest blunder in the history of mankind".

"Perhaps the idea of Pakistan was dead at its inception, when the majority of Muslims chose to stay back after independence, a truism reiterated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971".

— Altaf Hussain's Keynote Speech at conference in New Delhi on 6 November 2004

Riaz Haq said...


Riaz Haq said...

"Sorry, we don't hire Muslims". Top #India company rejects qualified #Muslim candidate with MBA - The Hindu …

If they wanted to reject my application they could have given another excuse, says Zeshan Ali Khan

In a case of religious discrimination, a leading diamond export company here has rejected the job application of a young man just because he is a Muslim.

“Thanks for your application. We regret to inform you that we hire only non-Muslim candidates,” was the reply MBA graduate Zeshan Ali Khan received.

Having completed his MBA in international business, Mr. Khan was searching for a job in a leading export house. He emailed his resume to Hare Krishna Exports Pvt. Ltd. on Tuesday. The diamond conglomerate is headquartered in Mumbai and has a global presence

“Along with a bunch of friends, I forwarded my resume to the company. Almost half of them were immediately placed. I got a reply within 20 minutes of my application. I was shocked when I read it,” Mr. Khan told The Hindu.

“Initially, I thought it was a joke. Had they wanted to reject my application they could have given other excuses…,” he said.

Mr. Khan then put up a post on his experience on his Facebook page and generated sharp reactions. After the outrage gained traction, Mr. Khan on Wednesday received a “regret” e-mail by a senior executive of the company. “We would like to clarify that the company does not discriminate against candidates based on gender, caste, religion, etc. Any hurt caused in the matter is deeply regretted,” said Mahendra S. Deshmukh, Associate VP & Head-HR of the company.

Mr. Deshmukh’s email, a snapshot of which was shared with The Hindu by Mr. Khan, further said: “This erroneous email was sent by my colleague Mrs. Dipika Tike who has joined recently and is still on training.”

Riaz Haq said...













Riaz Haq said...





Riaz Haq said...









Riaz Haq said...





Riaz Haq said...







Riaz Haq said...

Book Review: The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience

BY Jibby Katayan, DNA, India;

Jaffrelot delves into great detail on three sources of tensions that roiled Pakistan: ethnic schisms, be it Bengali, Baloch, or Pashtun, and their federal aspirations that came into conflict with the unitary definition of the Pakistan nation; the army's tendency to interrupt the democratic process; and differences between Islamists and those who view Islam as a common cultural identity marker that distinguishes Pakistan from, say, India.

Jaffrelot concludes that Pakistan appears less vulnerable to the centrifugal forces of ethno-nationalism in the 2000s compared to the 1970s, when these movements first assumed militant stances. A notable feature of the chronic instability and alternating periods of democratisation and martial law is that the country never slipped out of the clutches of the ruling elites. As a result, land and fiscal reforms were non-starters and benefits of secular education never really reached the grassroots.

This directly fed into Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation policy – a period of unprecedented state support for madrasas coupled with liberal funding from Saudi Arabia. However, Jaffrelot is clear that Zia was driven by the idea of state control over Islamic religion and would never have brooked Islamic leaders calling the shots in Pakistan. Nevertheless, Pakistan paid a heavy price for his Islamisation policy. It sprung two offshoots, jihadism and sectarianism, that pose a greater threat to Pakistani society than the possibility of ethnic strife or another army coup.

Jaffrelot is unsparing in blaming Pakistan for promoting jihadism, expecting this to provide a strategic counterweight against India, and extend Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan. In this context, Pakistan could have made a clean break with Islamists post-9/11. Here, Jaffrelot notes that the Pakistan army's perception of the Afghan Taliban, Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba as assets and the refusal to tackle these groups head-on enabled them "to acquire such power that today they can defy the state and create the conditions of a low-intensity civil war". In discussing the possibility of civil war, Jaffrelot proceeds to discuss the army's actions in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (NWFP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

In the end, Pakistan's (and India's) best bet for long-term survival is economic upliftment of the masses. The world over, there is growing discourse around economic inequality, but South Asian nations continue to be enmeshed in the polarising rhetoric of cultural-religious nationalists.

Jaffrelot has given us a comprehensive tome, that combines a sociological perspective of Pakistan's history and a deep – occasionally sympathetic – understanding of positions staked out by the politicians and army generals in steering the country through choppy waters.

Riaz Haq said...

Op Ed by Uday Mahurkar:





Riaz Haq said...

What makes Pakistan resilient
By Tariq MahmudPublished: November 2, 2015






Riaz Haq said...

There are some who see Khaleda Zia as pro-Pakistan and charge that her husband Gen Zia wanted confederation with Pakistan

Riaz Haq said...



Riaz Haq said...

Nadeem Farooq Paracha in Dawn on Two Nation Theory:

In the late 19th century, Nabagopal Mitra, one of the pioneers of Hindu nationalism, authored a paper in which he described the Hindus of India as a nation that was better than the Muslims and the Christians. He added that ‘the basis of national unity in India was the Hindu religion’ and that the Hindus should strive to form an ‘Aryan nation.’

In an early 20th century pamphlet, Bhai Paramanand, a leading member of the Hindu reformist movement the Arya Samaj, described the Hindus and Muslims as being two separate nations who were ‘irreconcilable.’ In his autobiography, ‘My Life’, Pramanand mentions how in 1908 he called for an exchange and settling of Hindu and Muslim populations in different geographical areas.

In a December 14, 1924 article in the Bombay daily, The Tribune, Congress leader and Hindu nationalist Lajpat Rai too called for a ‘clear partition of the region into a Hindu India and non-Hindu India …’

In 1923, poet and playwright, VD Savarkar, coined the word, ‘Hindutva’ in a book (also titled Hindutva). He coined the word to mean ‘Hinduness’ and wrote that the Muslims (and the Christians) of India were outside of ‘Hindu nationhood.’ Then, in 1937 while speaking at the 19th session of the influential Hindu Mahasabha, Savarkar insisted ‘there are two nations in India: Hindus and the Muslims.’

In 1939, MS Golwalker — the supreme leader of the radical Hindu organisation the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) — published his book, ‘We, Or Our Nationhood Defined’. In it he asserted that the minority communities of India (specifically, Muslim) should merge with the Hindu nation or perish. He wrote that non-Hindus in India could not be considered Indian unless they were ‘purified’ (i.e. converted to Hinduism).

Golwalker described the Hindus as being India’s ‘national race’ and pointed at the example of Nazi Germany’s eradication of the Jews as a way to deal with minorities who refused to adapt to the culture of the national race.

Interestingly, during the recent rise in the attacks against Muslims in India, the country’s PM and the chief of the BJP, Narendra Modi, suggested that India’s Muslims should not be rebuked but need ‘purification’ (parishkar). Modi was referring to the use of this word in this context by BJP’s prime ideologue, Pandit Upadhyaya. Upadhyaya had first used the word decades ago as an extension of the Sanskrit word Shuddi used by Hindu nationalist Dr. PS Moonje in 1923. Shuddi also means ‘purification’ and Moonje had used it to mean the conversion of Muslims and Christians to Hinduism.

Riaz Haq said...


by Gurpreet Singh














Riaz Haq said...





