|
|
 | | From: | nkdatta8839 at bigmailbox.net | | Subject: | Pak Journalist On Two-nation Theory | | Date: | 11 Jan 2005 23:37:42 -0800 |
|
|
 | http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/mazdak.htm
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
08 January 2005 Saturday 26 Ziqa'ad 1425
The ifs and buts of history
By Irfan Husain
Of late, there has been much controversy over the two-nation theory
sparked off by Altaf Hussain. The MQM chief is reported to have
asserted in India that this theory was invalid.
I have often disagreed strongly with the self-exiled leader, but find
his secular, anti-feudal stance refreshing. So while many voices in the
mainstream media have condemned some of his statements as inflammatory
and even traitorous, they do merit serious examination.
Let us start with the basics: a theory is a working hypothesis until it
is proved or disproved by experience and experiment in the field and in
the laboratory.
In essence, the two-nation theory enunciated by the top Muslim League
leadership as the ideological basis for the demand for Pakistan stated
that as Muslims and Hindus were two different nations, they needed
separate homelands.
Mr Jinnah is on record as saying that as the two communities spoke
different languages, ate different food, had different customs, and,
above all, followed different religions, they constituted two entirely
different nations.
The outcome of this theory and the political and territorial demand
that emanated from it was the creation of Pakistan. Obviously, history
cannot be rewritten, but it is still useful to examine the theory and
see whether it stands up to analysis based on the experience gained
since it was first articulated.
I have been mulling over this theme over the last week while travelling
around in South India. Here, I have met a number of Muslims, and in
their patchy Hindi and English, they have made it clear that they are
completely at home, and get on very well with their Hindu and Christian
neighbours.
This morning, a Sunday, I was on a boat in the back waters of Kerala,
and could see the minarets of a mosque among the coconut palms. But the
sound I heard was the sound of bells from a nearby church. A day
earlier, our group drove past a large Hindu congregation. And just in
case some readers feel sorry for the Muslims of Kerala, let me remind
them that the oldest continuous community of Muslims in the
subcontinent live right here.
They have integrated seamlessly into the fabric of the area, and do not
see their faith as an issue. Their Hindu and Christian neighbours visit
them at Eid, just as they celebrate Holi and Christmas with their
friends.
How can these different communities be separated? They speak the same
language, are ethnically of the same stock, and while orthodox Hindus
may be vegetarians, they cook in the identical, delicious Kerala style.
Until you ask them directly, it is impossible to tell who is Hindu, who
is Muslim and who is Christian.
This brings us to a fundamental question: what defines a person? Surely
not religion alone, although it is an important factor. Education,
upbringing, geography, class and genes are just a few of the
ingredients making up the complex matrix that is a human being.
Invariably, where we grow up is largely a matter of chance. A universal
genetic lottery determines the circumstances in which we grow up. We
cannot help being born black, white or yellow, any more than we can
decide the faith into which we are born. And once born, we often have
little control over the future.
Since the whole business of life is so random, can we say that we are
superior to anybody else? Or so different that we cannot live next to
them? Because that, in essence, is what the two-nation theory is about.
It is clear that in his demand for Pakistan, Mr Jinnah never envisaged
the mass transfer of populations partition would trigger. Indeed, he
was deeply sickened by the death and destruction that accompanied the
birth of Pakistan.
But as Ayesha Jalal demonstrates in her seminal book The Sole
Spokesman, the demand for Pakistan was initially a bargaining position
for Mr Jinnah. The fact that he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan
calling for a confederation as late as 1946 indicates that he was
prepared for a compromise until the very last moment.
It was only after the Congress leadership dilly dallied and raised
objections that positions hardened and the creation of Pakistan became
inevitable. The whole question of separateness was raised a hundred
years ago by the Muslim aristocracy when the British were planning
local elections.
Fearing being swamped by a Hindu majority, they petitioned their
British overlords into agreeing to holding elections under a system of
separate electorates, with Muslims voting for their own candidates.
This was the beginning of communal politics in India, and led
willy-nilly to the demand for, and creation of, Pakistan. So far, this
has been a somewhat academic discussion of past events that cannot be
changed. But what implications does the two-nation theory have for the
future?
For me, the concept of being unable to live next door to somebody
because he has a different faith, or language, or appearance is
intolerant and bigoted. And if Muslims cannot live with Hindus one day,
West Pakistanis will be unable to live with Bengalis the next day, and
Sunnis will be unable to live with Shias the following day.
Where does this logic lead us? Clearly, the demand for Pakistan was
based on the perceived need to protect Muslim interests in the face of
a Hindu majority after the British left. But if no transfer of
population was contemplated, surely not much thought was given to the
plight of the Muslims of India once Pakistan had come into being. And
if they have been at a disadvantage in certain parts of India - and,
indeed, suffered violence in sporadic riots - our own aggressive
policies must be partly to blame. .....
|
|
| | From: | nkdatta8839 at bigmailbox.net | | Subject: | Re: Pak Journalist On Two-nation Theory | | Date: | 15 Jan 2005 07:34:24 -0800 |
|
|
| http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/jan-2005/15/columns5.php
The Nation, Pakistan
Saturday, January 15, 2005
The Two-Nation Theory under fire
By MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN
The statement of Chief of MQM Altaf Hussain in New Delhi challenging
the validity of Two Nation Theory, caused a big stir in Pakistan and
raised many eyebrows elsewhere. During his recent visit to India, the
MQM Chief issued a statement about the partition of Subcontinent that
'it was a mistake'. He rationalises his statement by saying that "had
partition not taken place, Muslims would have been such a strong force
that to secure majority without Muslims' support would have been
impossible".
Altaf Hussain questioned the campaigners of the Two-Nation Theory as
they focused only to the areas where majority of the Muslims lived and
ignored those Muslims who were minorities amongst Hindu dominated
regions. .....
...... Pakistan was created wherein all the Muslims of the Subcontinent
could live according to their faith, customs and traditions. The Muslim
League wanted an independent state from United India and it carried on
the fight for Pakistan on the basis of the Two-Nation Theory. It was
undoubtedly a startling proposition that Muslim spread all over India,
should be taken as a nation, because they were different from the
majority community in religion. However, the concept of nationality was
determined by the psychological reactions of people inhabiting the
particular region. The concept of brotherhood of Muslims was encouraged
and the Muslim demand for a national home rolled on into the demand for
a national state.
A case for a territory on the strength of Muslim nationalism was made
out. Muslim refused to live together with the Hindus; they became
conscious of their determination to live apart from Hindus. But, Muslim
nationalism could only be materialised unless large-scale exchange of
population was not carried out in a partitioned India. The compulsory
exchange of population was considered impracticable. The partition of
India took place on the basis of territorial nationalism but the fact
that the Muslim majority areas were carved out into different state was
a rational application of the Two-nation Theory. The theory was
vindicated, as the partition of India was guided by the Muslim Leagues
thesis that Hindus and Muslims could not live together peacefully.
......
...... Nevertheless, MQM's rejection of Two-Nation Theory outrightly as
'a mistake' is something scurrilous about the creation of Pakistan.
Mohajir's rally behind the slogan Ham nain Pakistan our Islam ka theka
nahin liya hat (We have not signed contracts to uphold Pakistan and
Islam) smacks negation of our much cherished doctrine of Two-Nation
Theory. Having, for decades, declared their identity as Pakistanis and
Muslim, and opposed all ethnic movements in the name of Pakistan and
Islam, MQM has now repudiated both of these criteria in favour of the
notion of Mohajir nationality. This overnight ethnic redefinition, has
led to the abandonment of the Islamic fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami
(JI) and the traditionalist Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan (JUP) by the new
MQM leadership.
MQM has been created in 1984, as Urdu-speaking migrated people from
India feel discriminated against at all levels. According to its
programme, the MQM believes that there are five nationalities living in
Pakistan and that the Mohajirs are one of those nationalities. The
definition of Mohajir for the MQM includes not only the Urdu speakers
who migrated from India in 1947 but also the Memons, Gujratis and
Kathiawaris who have been living in Pakistan before partition and the
Biharis who migrated from East Pakistan in 1971. Certainly the
Mohajirs, like all other communities in the country face growing
economic and social problems marked by deep rooted "identity crisis".
......
|
|
|
