Monday, August 15, 2011

The Two Nation Theory... don't forget it!

When you are not petty and selfish you achieve big...
The Quaed e Azam was a great man and never petty and selfish, if he were so, he could never have accomplished the big thing which he did. One should read "Legend or Reality" published by Army Press Rawalpindi. If you don't get it, go to the Islamabad library, on the foots of the beautiful Margala Hills not far from the President's house and read the book sitting there.

Subsequently we got petty and selfish and see what happened. While one great man with his higher values got a country for the Muslims of the sub-continent the minions later on could not even get a yard of occupied Kashmir despite having a UN Resolution in favor. Nay they with their shortsightedness, selfishness and pettiness lost half of the country with the feudal and tribal mindset playing huge role in the debacle.

When the greater vision and the big picture and the real cause is forgotten and lost and our ideas degenerate into petty regionalism, parochialism and nepotism etc. we get results as we are getting now. It is getting worse by the day. Hate is ruling us rather love and concern for the Muslim Ummah.

Whether you like the bitter truth of history or not Pakistan was made only and only on the basis of a Two Nation theory. Nothing else. Not for any Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi or a Pathan. Although it was never envisioned as a theocratic state. Muslim State yes. For Muslims yes but it had full guarantees for all minorities. Quaed e Azam envisioned a modern state, he was himself very modern.

The criteria was one and only one. Muslim or Hindu - exactly as Israel, Muslim or a Jew - not an Arab or a Jew. This is a bitter truth of history. Only two nations till recently were made on the basis of a two nation theory one Pakistan and the other Israel. A few years ago it was Aceh and this year South Sudan. You have to swallow this bitter or sweet pill depends on what you believe in - truth or fiction.

If you want to re-construct history it is entirely up to you. Then there is no difference between you and the RSS Hindus who want to reconstruct history of India. Libraries worldwide are being filled with this fictitious history. You want to copy them, go ahead. At least they do not leave their co-religionists in the lurch like we want our to be.

Theories that give birth to a country are never time bound either. Even a Muslim child born today in India and thinks Pakistan is his country, you cannot stop him as per the original vision. Great sacrifices have been made in life, blood and money. All Muslim centers have been destroyed in India like Lucknow, Bhopal or Hyderabad, to name a few at the alter of Pakistan.

If the religious people at that time objected it was not that they did not want a Muslim Country. It is just that they were concerned that Muslim is in every nook and corner of India, what about him? How will you save him? All did not have the resources to move. Even Quaed e Azam always worried about it. When he was in Ziarath nothing else was on his mind. He cried all the time while Fatima Jinnah gave him napkins for his tears. Read it please.

Even the 1940 Allahabad declaration addressed by Allama Iqba called for Muslim majority states. At that time also they did not ask for a Muslim Country. Ask Najam sethi, he will testify to it. Or if you want I will send you the link listen to him yourself.

Now we can't get petty and selfish and all for our self. Some people's allusion to the thought that the writer (this article was written in response to an article and comments) may not be a Pakistani is a moot point. How does it matter even if he is not a Pakistani, a fact we do not know. Sitting in Dublin he must at best be a Muslim and an Irish. He seems to be a Muslim by his name, it is fine. Even that is not important. The important thing is what is he saying. Right or wrong? Truth or fiction? Whoever he may be.

What are you trying to suggest? Let's not stoop low. See what he is writing? There are a lot of historians including Stanely Wolvepert who are not Pakistani so will you say they are all anti-Pakistan? No. That is far too narrow minded a view.

We have to rise above all this pettiness and selfishness as we have been since the death of another great - Liaquath Ali Khan. In any case there have been only two heroes - The Quaed e Azam and Shaheed e Millath. Barring Suharwardy most others are considered as heroes but villains.

Stanley Wolpert in 1983 in fact resurrected and re-built the image of The Quad e Azam after it had taken a battering in the film Gandhi by Richard Attenborough. It was a non-Muslim that came to his rescue. No Muslim or a Pakistani did. "Jinnah of Pakistan" by Stanley Wolpert then restored his image.

The history is full of facts that show the struggle for Muslims of India and no other regional or tribal or racist consideration. Period. Quaed e Azam has repeatedly mentioned a homeland for Muslims of the sub-continent - one of the two nations, now if we we want to twist it for selfish reasons do it.

The history and objective of Pakistan will not change. But it will have its consequences. The only way of retaining Balochistan and reinforcing the claim on Kashmir is with the same Two Nation Theory. Nothing else. Like it or not.


Jamshed said...

And India is touted as a big democracy while violating all International Laws and subjugating people against the wishes of the people it occupies in Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh and many more against the will of the people.

Anonymous said...

Unlike the author's assumption that Israel was forced upon Palestine in the name of religion, the reality is that it was created on the basis of Jewishness that is imparted ONLY through a Jew mother. While religion is matter of choice, Jewishness is matter of racism -- a privilege occurring through accident of birth. Pakistan cannot be compared to a racist entity. Even the children of Jew fathers and non-Jew mothers cannot claim Israeli citizenship, but a Jew mother and a father of any description is a passport to Israel.
Yes, Pakistan was created on the basis of 2-Nation Theory but it was left to the mercy of mostly those who did not participate in the struggle. Instead, it came to be dominated by the progeny of those who earned their titles and feudals holdings on the basis of their service to British invaders. The result is plain to see.

Anonymous said...

The Quaid must be turning in his grave upon watching the manipulation of his creation by the elite nexus of Generals-Jaagirdaars-Industrialists. His ghost must be mourning at the sight of Sunnis killing Shias, and seeing Ahmadiyaas getting discriminated, of minorities getting decimated. He must be sulking at having to watch Muslims in India prosper as part a secular nation, the kind which he had envisaged Pakistan to be.
The Two Nation Theory is a total farce. The logic of Two-Nations states that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct blocks. It totally misses the fact that these blocks are further sub-divided into so many little pieces, that none of them can be joined together to form those Two Blocks. Neither of these two blocks ever existed as a functioning whole, their existence is just a figment of imagination.
If the entire 1.6 Billion Population of the sub-continent is broken down based on religio-political lines, it will reveal the following groups:
450 million Upper Caste Hindus
250 million Lower Caste Hindus, who are totally unaligned with the Upper Castes
450 million Sunni Muslims
200 million Shia Muslims, who are largely unaligned with the Sunnis.
200 million Dalits, who are totally atheist, and unaligned with any of the above.
The rest are Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, etc.
And furthermore all these groups listed above are sliced and diced into more linguistic and distinct geographic sub-groups.
In India, every 2% of the population is different from the other 98%. But all those different 2% pieces added together have created the largest secular democratic republic of the world.
A truly secular democratic nation of the above composition could never have been an anathema to any single group. The power of democracy would have ensured that no single group ever becomes dominant. It would have accorded equal rights and statuses to every individual, as has been largely achieved in a secular India. It also would have created the largest economic block in the world, far more superior, powerful and prosperous than any other country.
Unfortunately, historical hindsight is always going to be 20/20. What has been done cannot be undone. If the people of the subcontinent want to prosper, they must cease all differences and create a tightly knit economic block which will ensure that the true potential of this region is brought to fruition.