Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1113935680 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) Misleading summary, also enforcing admin viewed in complaint that it's political and not military issue. |
|||
Line 8:
The '''two-nation theory''' is an ideology of [[religious nationalism]] which significantly influenced the Indian subcontinent following its [[Independence of India|independence]] from the [[British Empire]]. According to this theory, [[Islam in the Indian subcontinent|Indian Muslims]] and [[Hinduism in India|Indian Hindus]] are two separate nations, with their own customs, religion, and traditions; therefore, from social and moral points of view, Muslims should be able to have their own separate homeland outside of Hindu-majority India, one in which Islam is the dominant religion, and be [[Religious segregation|segregated]] from Hindus and other non-Muslims.<ref>{{cite book |title=Challenges and Opportunities in Global Approaches to Education |date=2019 |publisher=IGI Global |isbn=978-1-5225-9777-3 |page=58 |quote=Indian Partition of 1947 was a significant communal segregation in the world's history following a huge mass migration. Based on Jinnah's and Savarkar's“Two-Nation Theory”, a majority-Muslim state named Pakistan came into being. Islam as a religion was the only connector between the two long-distanced (by more than 2200 kilometers) parts of Pakistan: East and West (Rafique, 2015). However, the East Pakistanis (present day Bangladeshis) soon found themselves in a vulnerable position in concern of political and economic power. Corrupt West Pakistani leaders persecuted the peoples in the East side.}}</ref><ref name="khan1940"/> The two-nation theory advocated by the [[All India Muslim League]] is the founding principle of the [[Pakistan Movement]] (i.e. the ideology of [[Pakistan]] as a Muslim [[nation-state]] in the northwestern and eastern regions of India) through the [[partition of India]] in 1947.
There are varying interpretations of the two-nation theory, based on whether the two postulated nationalities can coexist in one territory or not, with radically different implications. One interpretation argued for the [[secession]] of the Muslim-majority areas of [[Presidencies and provinces of British India|British India]] and saw differences between Hindus and Muslims as irreconcilable; this interpretation nevertheless promised a democratic state where Muslims and non-Muslims would be treated equally.<ref name="caldarola1982">{{Citation | title=Religions and societies, Asia and the Middle East | author=Carlo Caldarola | year=1982 | isbn=978-90-279-3259-4 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=R1ME01zxL98C |pages=262–263|quote="They simply advocated a democratic state in which all citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, would enjoy equal rights."}}</ref> A different interpretation holds that a transfer of populations (i.e. the total removal of Hindus from Muslim-majority areas and the total removal of Muslims from Hindu-majority areas) is a desirable step towards a complete separation of two incompatible nations that "cannot coexist in a harmonious relationship".<ref name="harman1977">{{Citation | title=Plight of Muslims in India | author=S. Harman | year=1977 | isbn=978-0-9502818-2-7 |publisher= DL Publications |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0x1uAAAAMAAJ}}</ref><ref name="sankhdher1992">{{Citation | title=Secularism in India, dilemmas and challenges | author=M. M. Sankhdher | year=1992|publisher=Deep & Deep Publication | isbn=9788171004096 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h8wfAAAAIAAJ }}</ref>
[[Opposition to the partition of India|Opposition to the two-nation theory]] came from both nationalist Muslims and Hindus, being based on two concepts.<ref name="Rabasa2004"/><ref name="Ali2006"/> The first is the concept of a [[Composite nationalism|single Indian nation]], of which [[Hindu-Muslim unity|Hindus and Muslims]] are two intertwined communities.<ref name="zakaria2004">{{Citation | title=Indian Muslims: where have they gone wrong? | author=Rafiq Zakaria | year=2004 | isbn=978-81-7991-201-0 |publisher=Popular Prakashan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-aMlKSmWRQ8cC }}</ref> The second source of opposition is the concept that while Indians are not one nation, neither are the Muslims or Hindus of India, and it is instead the relatively homogeneous provincial units of the Indian subcontinent which are true nations and deserving of sovereignty; this view has been presented by the [[Baloch people|Baloch]],<ref name="
The state of India officially rejected the two-nation theory and chose to be a [[secular state]], enshrining the concepts of [[religious pluralism]] and [[composite nationalism]] in its constitution.<ref name="Scott2011">{{cite book |last1=Scott |first1=David |title=Handbook of India's International Relations |date=2011 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-81131-9 |page=61 |quote=On the other hand the Republic of India rejected the very foundations of the two-nation theory and, refusing to see itself a Hindu India, it proclaimed and rejoiced in religious pluralism supported by a secular state ideology and for a geographical sense of what India was.}}</ref><ref name="Ali2006">{{cite book |last1=Ali |first1=Asghar Ali |title=They Too Fought for India's Freedom: The Role of Minorities |date=2006 |publisher=Hope India Publications |isbn=978-81-7871-091-4 |page=24 |quote=Mr. Jinnah and his Muslim League ultimately propounded the two nation theory. But the 'Ulama rejected this theory and found justification in Islam for composite nationalism.}}</ref>
==History==
Line 98 ⟶ 100:
The [[Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at]] staunchly supported Jinnah and his two-nation theory.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Minority Interest |journal=[[Pakistan Herald Publications|The Herald]] |date=1991 |volume=22 |issue=1–3 |page=15 |publisher=[[Pakistan Herald Publications]] |quote=When the Quaid-e-Azam was fighting his battle for Pakistan, only the Ahmadiya community, out of all religious groups, supported him.}}</ref> Chaudary Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadi leader, drafted the [[Lahore Resolution]] that separatist leaders interpreted as calling for the creation of Pakistan.<ref name=Khalid>{{cite web |last1=Khalid |first1=Haroon |title=Pakistan paradox: Ahmadis are anti-national but those who opposed the country's creation are not |url=https://scroll.in/article/836580/how-ahmadis-became-anti-pakistan-and-those-who-opposed-its-creation-came-to-define-nationalism |website=[[Scroll.in]] |date=May 6, 2017}}</ref> Chaudary Zafarullah Khan was asked by Jinnah to represent the Muslim League to the Radcliffe Commission, which was charged with drawing the line between an independent India and newly created Pakistan.<ref name=Khalid/> Ahmadis argued to try to ensure that the city of [[Qadian, India]] would fall into the newly created state of Pakistan, though they were unsuccessful in doing so <ref>{{cite book |last1=Balzani |first1=Marzia |title=Ahmadiyya Islam and the Muslim Diaspora: Living at the End of Days |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-351-76953-2 |language=en}}</ref> Upon the creation of Pakistan, many Ahmadis held prominent posts in government positions;<ref name=Khalid/> in the [[Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948]], in which Pakistan tried to capture the state of [[Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)|Jammu and Kashmir]], the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at created the [[Furqan Force]] to fight Indian troops.<ref name="Valentine2008">{{cite book |last1=Valentine |first1=Simon Ross |title=Islam and the Ahmadiyya Jamaʻat: History, Belief, Practice |date=2008 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-70094-8 |page=204 |quote=In 1948, after the creation of Pakistan, when the Dogra Regime and the Indian forces were invading Kashmir, the Ahmadi community raised a volunteer force, the Furqan Force which actively fought against Indian troops.}}</ref>
Some [[Barelvi]] scholars supported the Muslim League and Pakistan's demand, arguing that befriending 'unbelievers' was forbidden in Islam.<ref name="Sikand2005"
===Savarkar's ideas on "two nations"===
Line 108 ⟶ 110:
"Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree, not only agree but insist, that there are two nations in India —one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation. They differ only as regards the terms and conditions on which the two nations should live. Mr. Jinnah says India should be cut up into two, Pakistan and Hindustan, the Muslim nation to occupy Pakistan and the Hindu nation to occupy Hindustan. Mr. Savarkar, on the other hand, insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution; that the constitution shall be such that the Hindu nation will be enabled to occupy a predominant position that is due to it and the Muslim nation made to live in the position of subordinate co-operation with the Hindu nation."<ref>{{cite book |last=Ambedkar |first=B.R. |date=1940 |title=Pakistan or the Partition of India |author-link=B.R. Ambedkar |url=http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/307a.html#part_2}}</ref>
==Opposition to the partition of India==
[[Image:Badshah Khan.jpg|thumb|300px|[[Indian National Congress]] leaders [[Abdul Ghaffar Khan]] and [[Mohandas Gandhi]] both championed [[Hindu–Muslim unity]] and [[opposition to the partition of India|opposed the partition of colonial India]].]]
{{Main|Opposition to the partition of India}}
{{Further|Composite nationalism|Hindu–Muslim unity|Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb}}
===All India Azad Muslim Conference===
The [[All India Azad Muslim Conference]], which represented nationalist Muslims, gathered in Delhi in April 1940 to voice its support for an [[Opposition to the partition of India|independent and united India]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Qasmi |first1=Ali Usman |last2=Robb |first2=Megan Eaton |title=Muslims against the Muslim League: Critiques of the Idea of Pakistan |date=2017 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781108621236 |page=2 |language=en}}</ref> The British government, however, sidelined this nationalist Muslim organization and came to see Jinnah, who advocated separatism, as the sole representative of Indian Muslims.<ref name="Shodganga">{{citation |last=Qaiser |first=Rizwan |chapter=Towards United and Federate India: 1940-47 |title=Maulana Abul Kalam Azad a study of his role in Indian Nationalist Movement 1919–47 |publisher=Jawaharlal Nehru University/Shodhganga |year=2005 |hdl=10603/31090 |at=Chapter 5, pp. 193, 198}}</ref>
===Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgar===
[[Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan]], also known as the "Frontier Gandhi" or "Sarhadi Gandhi", was not convinced by the two-nation theory and wanted a single united India as a home for both Hindus and Muslims. He was from the [[North West Frontier Province]] of British India, now in present-day [[Pakistan]]. He believed that the partition would be harmful to the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. After partition, following a majority of the NWFP voters going for Pakistan in a controversial referendum,<ref name="Phadnis">{{cite web |last1=Phadnis |first1=Aditi |title=Britain created Pakistan |url=https://www.rediff.com/news/interview/britain-created-pakistan/20171102.htm |publisher=Rediff |access-date=2 June 2020 |date=2 November 2017}}</ref> Ghaffar Khan resigned himself to their choice and took an oath of allegiance to the new country on February 23, 1948, during a session of the Constituent Assembly, and his second son, [[Khan Abdul Wali Khan|Wali Khan]], "played by the rules of the political system" as well.<ref>[[Christophe Jaffrelot]], ''The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience'', Oxford University Press (2015), p. 153</ref>
===Mahatma Gandhi's view===
[[Mahatma Gandhi]] was against the division of India on the basis of religion. He once wrote:{{blockquote|I find no parallel in history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from the parent stock.<ref name="Prasoon2010">{{cite book|author=Prof. Prasoon|title=My Letters.... M.K.Gandhi|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qfEbNpv7ggC&pg=PA120|date=1 January 2010|publisher=Pustak Mahal|isbn=978-81-223-1109-9|page=120}}</ref><ref name="Arnold2014">{{cite book|author=David Arnold|title=Gandhi|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GWzXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT170|date=17 June 2014|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-1-317-88234-3|page=170}}</ref><ref name="Chakraborty2014">{{cite book|author=Mridula Nath Chakraborty|title=Being Bengali: At Home and in the World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DUgsAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA203|date=26 March 2014|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-81890-8|page=203}}</ref><ref name="Banerjee1981">{{cite book|author=Anil Chandra Banerjee|title=Two Nations: The Philosophy of Muslim Nationalism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=APLmIxRyEjEC&pg=PA236|year=1981|publisher=Concept Publishing Company|page=236|id=GGKEY:HJDP3TYZJLW}}</ref><ref name="Parekh1991">{{cite book|author=Bhikhu Parekh|title=Gandhi's Political Philosophy: A Critical Examination|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sP2wCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA178|date=25 November 1991|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|isbn=978-1-349-12242-4|page=178}}</ref>}}
===Maulana Sayyid Abul Kalam Azad's view===
[[Abul Kalam Azad|Maulana Sayyid Abul Kalam Azad]] was a member of the Indian National Congress and was known as a champion of [[Hindu-Muslim unity]].<ref name="Naqvi"/> He argued that Muslims were native to India and had made India their home.<ref name="Naqvi"/> Cultural treasures of undivided India such as the [[Red Fort]] of Delhi to the [[Taj Mahal]] of Agra to the [[Badshahi Mosque]] of Lahore reflected an Indo-Islamic cultural legacy in the whole country, which would remain inaccessible to Muslims if they were divided through a partition of India.<ref name="Naqvi">{{cite web |last1=Naqvi |first1=Saeed |title=Why didn't we listen to Maulana Azad's warning? |url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/op-ed/310120/why-didnt-we-listen-to-maulana-azads-warning.html |website=[[Deccan Chronicle]] |access-date=2 June 2020 |language=en |date=31 January 2020}}</ref> He opposed the partition of India for as long as he lived.<ref>{{cite news |title=Maulana Azad opposed Partition till last breath: Experts |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/maulana-azad-opposed-partition-till-last-breath-experts-116022301000_1.html |website=[[Business Standard]] |access-date=2 June 2020 |date=23 February 2016}}</ref>
=== View of the Deobandi ulema ===
{{further|Composite Nationalism and Islam}}
The two-nation theory and the partition of India were vehemently opposed by the vast majority of [[Deobandi]] Islamic religious scholars, being represented by the [[Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind]] that supported both the [[All India Azad Muslim Conference]] and [[Indian National Congress]].<ref name="Qasmi">{{cite book |last1=Qasmi |first1=Muhammadullah Khalili |title=Madrasa Education: Its Strength and Weakness |date=2005 |publisher=Markazul Ma'arif Education and Research Centre (MMERC) |isbn=978-81-7827-113-2 |page=175|quote=The Deobandis opposed partition, rejected the two-nation theory and strongly supported the nationalist movement led by the Congress.}}</ref><ref name="Kukreja">{{cite book |last1=Kukreja |first1=Veena |last2=Singh |first2=M. P. |title=Pakistan: Democracy, Development, and Security Issues |date=2005 |publisher=[[SAGE Publishing]] |isbn=978-93-5280-332-3 |quote=The latter two organizations were offshoots of the pre-independence Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind and were {{sic|comprised|hide=y}} mainly of Deobandi Muslims (Deoband was the site for the Indian Academy of Theology and Islamic Jurisprudence). The Deobandis had supported the Congress Party prior to partition in the effort to terminate British rule in India. Deobandis also were prominent in the Khilafat movement of the 1920s, a movement Jinnah had publicly opposed. The Muslim League, therefore, had difficulty in recruiting ulema in the cause of Pakistan, and Jinnah and other League politicians were largely inclined to leave the religious teachers to their tasks in administering to the spiritual life of Indian Muslims. If the League touched any of the ''ulema'' it was the Barelvis, but they too never supported the Muslim League, let alone the latter's call to represent all Indian Muslims.}}</ref><ref name="QasmiRobb2017">{{cite book |last1=Qasmi |first1=Ali Usman |last2=Robb |first2=Megan Eaton |title=Muslims against the Muslim League: Critiques of the Idea of Pakistan |date=2017 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781108621236 |page=2}}</ref><ref name="Ali2006"/> The principal of Darul Uloom Deoband, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni, not only opposed the two-nation theory but sought to redefine the Indian Muslim nationhood. He advocated [[composite nationalism|composite Indian nationalism]], believing that nations in modern times were formed on the basis of land, culture, and history.<ref name="Moj2015">{{cite book|author=Muhammad Moj|title=The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mbm2BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA81|date=1 March 2015|publisher=Anthem Press|isbn=978-1-78308-389-3|pages=81–}}</ref> He and other leading Deobandi ulama endorsed territorial nationalism, stating that Islam permitted it.<ref name="Sikand2005">{{cite book|author=Yoginder Sikand|title=Bastions of the Believers: Madrasas and Islamic Education in India|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dK6_IMuqWpoC&pg=PA228|year=2005|publisher=Penguin Books India|isbn=978-0-14-400020-3|pages=228–}}</ref> Despite opposition from most Deobandi scholars, Ashraf Ali Thanvi and Mufti Muhammad Shafi instead tried to justify the two-nation theory and concept of Pakistan.<ref name="Khan1988">{{cite book|author=Shafique Ali Khan|title=The Lahore resolution: arguments for and against : history and criticism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=910eAAAAMAAJ|year=1988|publisher=Royal Book Co.|isbn=9789694070810}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Ronald Inglehart|title=Islam, Gender, Culture, and Democracy: Findings from the World Values Survey and the European Values Survey|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FPbtAAAAMAAJ|year=2003|publisher=De Sitter Publications|isbn=978-0-9698707-7-7|page=28 }}</ref>
==Post-partition debate==
| |||