1.

The Two Nation theory means thecultural, political, religious, economic

and socialdissimilarities between the two majorcommunities, Hindus
and Muslims of the SubContinent. This theory means that there were
two nations in thesubcontinent, the Hindus and the Muslims.
Subcontinent consists of two different communitieshaving their own
philosophy of life. This theory gave rise to two distinct
politicalideologies that was responsible for the partition ofIndia into
two independent states.
2. . ConclusionThe Muslims realized thatthey would lose their religious
andcultural identity if they remained a partof British India. They also
able tounderstand the above mentioneddifferences between them and
hencedemanded a separate homeland onthe ground where they freely
practicedtheir religion in accordance with Quranand Sunnah and
Islamic teachings.They demanded a piece of land wheretheir property
and life would be safeguarded and secure.

//
In order to hide their crimes and to distort historical facts, Indian historians and political leaders
have chosen to paint Quaid-e-Azam as the 'villain of the piece'. The Indians propagate the theme
that 'Muhammad Ali Jinnah was a communalist responsible for the bloody break up of
Pakistan. He founded a theocratic and non-secular State'. The BJP and other Hindu
hardliners even now accuse him of leading a communal agitation to achieve the goal of Pakistan.
This is travesty of history and negation of facts that prove beyond doubt that Partition was a
legitimate and democratic outcome of the collective choice made by all Muslims and Hindus of the
subcontinent. They conveniently and deliberately close their eyes to the hard fact that politics, not
religion led to creation of Pakistan. Acceptance of Cabinet Mission Plan by Jinnah in 1946
demonstrated his earnestness for amicably resolving the communal problem. It was Nehru and his
Congress colleagues who wasted that opportunity and dug the last nail in the coffin of united
India. Nehru's and other Indian leaders' acts of commission and omission are far too many and
have already been narrated by historians.

Nirad Chaudhri, in the second volume of his autobiography "Thy Hand, Great an Arch"
observed, "I must set down at this point that Jinnah is the only man who came out with
success and honor from the ignoble end of the British Empire in India. He never made a
secret of what he wanted, never prevaricated, never compromised, and yet succeeded in
inflicting unmitigated defeat on the British Government and the Indian National
Congress. He achieved something, which not even he could have believed to be within
reach in 1946". Former Advocate General of Maharashtra H.M. Seervai exonerates Jinnah and
holds mainly the Indian National Congress responsible for Partition. In his book "Partition of India:
Legend and Reality", Seervai maintains, "It is a little unfortunate that those who assail
Jinnah for destroying the unity of India do not ask how it was that a man who wanted a
nationalist solution till as late as 1938, when he was 61 years of age, suddenly became
a communalist".

TOPIC:

“TWO NATION THEORY AND DEMAND OF PAKISTAN”

INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS TWO NATION THEORY- AN INTRODUCTIONARY PHASE:

. The basic concept behind Two Nation Theory was Muslims and Hindus was two
separate nations from every expects, So It was the right of Muslim to had their own
homeland in the Muslims majority areas of Sub-Continent, where they can live their life
according the majestic teachings of Islam. And this concept was merely adequate in
giving rise to two different political thinking which were responsible in partition of Sub-
Continent.

HISTORY OF TWO NATION THEORY:

The history of Two Nation was as old as the Muslims in India. Although the Muslims and
Hindus had been living together for centuries in the sub-continent, but they never tried to
progress a working relationship between each other and they always lived as a two
separate nations, two discrete social systems, two separate cultures and two different
civilizations. There was always a concept of two nations (Hindus and Muslim) after the
advent of Islam in the Subcontinent. But, it was converted in to a theory after the war of
Independence 1857. Sir Syed Ahmed khan is considered as a Father of Two Nation
Theory. First time Syed Ahmed Khan realized that Muslim and Hindus cannot live
together and considered Muslims as a separate nation and demanded a distinct
homeland where the Muslims can practices their way of living according to Islam.

Ideology of Pakistan took form through an evolutionary process. Historical experience

provided the base, with Sir Syed Ahmad Khan began the period of Muslim self-
awakening and started to aware the Muslims for modern education after Muslim downfall
in South Asia under the Hindus majority, Allama Iqbal provided the philosophical
explanation to Sir Syed’s idea and Quaid-e-Azam supported and converted the theory in
to a practical work and transformed it into a political reality.

IMPORTANCE OF TWO NATION THEORY IN WHOLE SCENARIO:

The entire freedom movement revolves around the Two Nation Theory which became
the basis for the demand of Pakistan. It means that the Muslims of the Sub-Continent
were a separate nation with their distinct culture, civilization, literature, history, religion
and social values. Islam the religion of Muslims was based on the concept of Tauheed
and therefore could not be merged in any other system of religion. It means Islam gives
us a concept of Two Nation Theory. Muslims of India would ultimately have a separate
homeland, as they could not live with the Hindus in Sub-Continent. The demanding and
achieving of Pakistan was only based on the Two Nation Theory and completely
revolving around this theory.

//

Ghose then writes about the current situation in IHK saying that is a sign of triumph
for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory.

“Today Kashmir is a cantonment, patrolled by lakhs of security forces, its residents

policed many of its youth blinded by pellet guns, stone-pelters poised in bloody
conflict with India’s army. India’s secular project has failed in Kashmir and
Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Two-Nation Theory (of Hindus and Muslims being two
nations who simply cannot live together) looks triumphant.

//

“Muslims are only acceptable when they’re in small numbers, not when they exist in
large numbers as in UP or form the majority as in Kashmir. Azaadi’s not a political
sentiment anymore but an Islamic identity-centred ideological war against the
perceived Hindu Rashtra. Is the ghost of Jinnah having a secret laugh even as
Nehru’s project is buried?”

She then criticized Indian leadership for not accepting Kashmiri Muslims’ citizenship
of India completely and presented the comparison between Jats and Gujrat Protests
with Kashmiri Muslims’ protest

“The Indian state too has never been able to fully accept the citizenship of the
Kashmiri Muslim. Jat protests became violent, the Hardik Patel-led protest led to the
torching of homes. Were pellet guns used in either Haryana or Gujarat? No, because
unlike Jats or Gujaratis, every Kashmiri protester is seen as a closet jihadist or an
agent of Pakistan. But can Pakistan’s ‘proxy war’ be countered only by pouring in
more Indian troops and guns? Instead, shouldn’t Kashmiri Muslims be treated as the
Indian citizens they are? Yet Kashmir is a prisoner of India’s ‘national security’
mindset, trapped in bureaucratic suspicion and prejudice, a ‘law and order’ mentality
that sees any kind of citizens’ protest as a sinister separatist insurrection. When did
Kashmiri youth cease to be human beings? When did they become only ‘modules’ or
‘sleeper cells’ or ‘operatives’? Spook-speak dominate India’s narrative on Kashmir.”

What is the law about?

The act offers amnesty to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from three
countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

It amends India's 64-year-old citizenship law, which currently

prohibits illegal migrants from becoming Indian citizens.

It also expedites the path to Indian citizenship for members of six

religious minority communities - Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi
and Christian - if they can prove that they are from Muslim-majority
Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh. They will now only have to
live or work in India for six years - instead of 11 years - before
becoming eligible to apply for citizenship.
The government says this will give sanctuary to people fleeing
religious persecution, but critics argue that it will marginalise
India's Muslim minority.

//

new law that allows immigrants of religious minorities

in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh to seek Indian citizenship while
excluding Muslims from that prerogative.
Passed in early December, the new law has put India's 200 million Muslims on
high alert and joins a growing list of controversies spurred by the Bharatiya
Janata Party-led government, which is accused of pushing a Hindu-nationalist
agenda.
Critics say that the CAA undermines India's secular 1949 Constitution which
ensures equality for all religions, Kashmir Media service reported.
Mass demonstrations have engulfed both large and small cities nationwide,
including Mumbai, New Delhi, Lucknow, Bangalore, and Malegaon. Authorities
have responded with a brutal crackdown, as well as restrictions on street
protests and internet shutdowns.
In August 2019, the BJP-led parliament abrogated the autonomy status of
Muslim-majority state Jammu and Kashmir, which has since been subjected to
curfews, restrictions on public transportation, and a near-total blackout.
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in
the Ayodhya dispute of 1992 when Hindu radicals razed down the
Babri Mosque in Uttar Pradesh, leading to nationwide violence between
Hindus and Muslims.
The final verdict ordered the contested land to be hand over to
the government for building a Hindu site.
Another upcoming controversial measure by the BJP is the National Register
of Citizens, a comprehensive database of every Indian resident. Critics fear
that the purpose of this list is to identify "undesirable" and force them to prove
their right to Indian citizenship.
The recent construction of detention centers in the Western state of
Maharashtra have raised suspicions that the government plans to arrest
citizens without documentation identified by the NRC. Similar mass detention
centres have been rolled out in Assam state and constructions are underway.
Amid the CAA protests, the BJP secured funds to go ahead with the database,
although Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the matter is still under study.
The BJP party is currently facing opposition to the Citizenship Act from 10
state governments, including Punjab, West Bengal, Kerala, Maharashtra, and
Jharkhand.

//

Hundreds of people joined a hunger strike, while scores have been killed in protests all over India.
Political pundits believe that the controversial CAA will marginalize non-Hindu voices in one of
India’s most ethnically diverse regions. Narendra Modi has described the CAA as a means of
protecting vulnerable groups from persecution, but critics say the true target is India’s minority
Muslim population and risks undermining the country’s secular constitution.

president of the opposition, Congress Party, stated: “Today marks a dark day in the constitutional
history of India. The passage of the citizenship amendment bill marks the victory of narrow-minded
and bigoted forces over India’s pluralism.”

//Ironically, Congress leader Shashi Tharoor declared that the CAA will be a victory of the thoughts
of Muhammad Ali Jinnah over Mahatma Gandhi. Participating in the debate on the contentious Bill,
Shashi Tharoor said the proposed legislation goes against the basic principle of the Constitution.
According to the proposed legislation, members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian
communities, who have come from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, till December 31, 2014,
and facing religious persecution there will not be treated as illegal immigrants and will be given
Indian citizenship.

//

There are around 16 million Hindus in Bangladesh alone, and naturalizing large numbers of
immigrants could also greatly impact employment, government subsidies and education. Critics of
the CAA say it is another example of how Modi and his BJP party have pushed an agenda of Hindu
nationalism onto secular India, a country of 1.3 billion people, at the expense of its Muslim
population. “There is a short-term and long-term objective to polarize India’s voters on the basis of
religious lines,” said Harsh Mander, a human rights activist and author. “The BJP and its ideological
partner RSS (have) never accepted the constitution and the citizenship of this country and they have
the leverage now and the numbers to effectively destroy India’s constitution, recreating India
according to their imagination as a Hindu state.”

//

The bill comes months after Modi’s government stripped the majority-Muslim state of
Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status, essentially giving New Delhi more control
over the region’s affairs and enabling mass Hindu migration to the region. The entire Valley
of Indian Occupied Kashmir is in a state of lockdown since August 5, 2019 for fear of
reprisal from the oppressed Kashmiris.

That same month, nearly two million people in Assam were left off a controversial new
National Register of Citizens, which critics feared could be used to justify religious
discrimination against Muslims in the state.

The enactment of CAA is being vehemently reviled both at home and abroad. Five
opposition-ruled Indian states have refused to implement the new law, which is a matter of
serious embarrassment for the BJP leadership. international reaction to the new India
legislation, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has criticized the bill as
going against India’s secular pluralism and the Indian constitution. It also sought American
sanctions against (Amit) Shah, the minister who introduced the bill. The New York Times
called the new legislation “divisive”.

“The measure, called the Citizenship Amendment Bill, uses religion as a criterion for
determining whether illegal migrants in India can be fast-tracked for citizenship. The bill
favours members of all South Asia’s major religions except Islam, and leaders of India’s 200-
million-strong Muslim community have called it blatant discrimination. The Washington Post
said: “India passes controversial citizenship law excluding Muslim migrants”. It said:
“Lawmakers in India on Wednesday passed a fundamental change to its citizenship law to
include religion as a criterion for nationality for the first time, deepening concerns that a
country founded on secular ideals is becoming a Hindu state that treats Muslims as second-
class citizens.”

Two//

India’s Citizenship Amendment Bill gives credence to the two-

nation theory much like Nehru and Patel’s actions in the run-up to
the partition gave legitimacy to the demand for Pakistan. It is not
a demonic law per se; we have a multitude of such laws which
discriminate on the basis of religion, but it is very portent in lifting
the veil off of India’s secularism: that under the guise of openness
there is malevolence, that under the watchful eye of the state
Muslims are brutalized.

//
Amongst those, there will be both Muslims and Hindus just like
out of the 2 million unregistered people in Assam, half are Muslim
while half are Hindu. Now here is where it gets interesting. After
the illegal aliens are identified, those who are Hindu or Sikh or
Jain or Parsi or Christian would be automatically granted relief
under CAA because the Act would apply to all Hindu, Sikh, Parsi,
Jain and Christian people who have migrated to India from either
Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh under duress; on the other
hand, all the Muslims who are illegal would either be forcibly
interned or deported.
//
This is not much different from the Jewish pogrom carried under
the Nazi regime or the systematic oppression of Muslims currently
underway in China. If BJP denies this, then it should also clarify
why only Muslims are excluded from the CAA. If indeed the BJP is
doing this on humanitarian grounds and is concerned about the
plight of persecuted minorities in its neighbouring countries, why
doesn’t it extend this same benevolence to Tamils in Sri Lanka, to
Rohyngias in Myanmar, to Ahmedis in Pakistan, to Uighurs in
China. The only reason critics have casted aspersions on the
intentions behind CAA and NRP is that people of only one religion
have been singled out. It is as if the BJP in tandem with the RSS
wants to fulfill its manifesto of India as a homeland for only
Hindus.

While religious strife between Hindus and Muslims has always

been a hallmark of India, Modi’s government has been particularly
ghastly towards the almost 200 million minority in India. The
revoking of Article 370 in Kashmir is a case in point. For five
months now, almost 900,000 residents are living under a curfew.
If such a situation was to exist in a monarchy like Saudi Arabia or
dictatorship like North Korea, it would be understandable. India’s
negation of all basic norms of decency, respect for its citizenry
have eroded its claim to be the World’s largest democracy, for
mere elections don’t make a democracy: it is access to a set of
certain inviolable rights and freedom of speech that allow a
country to call itself a democracy.

Student///

The way the students of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) and Aligarh
Muslim University (AMU) have come out to lead the protests
against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 is reflective of their
dismay with the system as well as an effort to defend the country’s
core constitutional values. The way this Act has made religion as
the basis of citizenship, and not persecution or a concern for
humanity, is questionable and problematic given the choice of
countries and the targeted minority groups. If one notices, these
protests arrived late as if the students waited for a while and, having
found a void in leadership, they plunged into dissent.
//
But the fact that one minority group has been singled out does
amount to a violation of the promises held by Mahatma Gandhi and
Jawaharlal Nehru that India would be a secular and democratic
country as against Pakistan that gave credence to religious identity.
Dr BR Ambedkar and the members of the Constituent Assembly
enshrined that spirit in the Constitution of India. The idea of India
has faced its own set of challenges from time to time. It may have
eroded but I would stop short of calling it a victory of Jinnah over
Nehru as far as the defenders of the Constitution ensure that the
vision of the founding figures of the country remain intact. India’s
democratic roots go far deeper and it is upon the people to continue
to nurture it.
// two

There were many believers in the two-nation theory, way before the
concept stirred the demand for Pakistan. In fact, Dr BR Ambedkar
concluded that both Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Muhammad
Ali Jinnah were in complete agreement about two separate nations
in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation.
Congress dispelled such notions and solidified an equal treatment
of all under the Constitution. The debates that took place in
Parliament over the two-nation theory in the last session is partial
and selective but at the same time reflective of the political parties’
respective imaginings of what sort of India they would like to create.
//
Sir Syed’s idea of nationalism was to bring forth the Muslims at par
with their compatriots in education that would have prepared them
to serve the nation better. In his detailed analysis of the revolt of
1857, Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind (The Causes of the Revolt of
India), he came to the realisation that Muslims had a lot to address
in order to wrest themselves out of ignorance and victimisation at
the hands of the British. To Sir Syed, his service to the nation lay in
serving and uplifting his immediate community before they could
join hands with their Hindu and Parsi compatriots to accomplish
larger tasks. Unfortunately, Sir Syed passed away in 1898 before
we could perceive how his politics would have unfolded in the early
twentieth century.
//

Q: Home minister Amit Shah said this new law has

been designed because Congress agreed on religion-
based partition, and now with this amendment he
aims to correct the wrongs of the past where Hindus
were persecuted in Pakistan. How do you look at the
situation where critics say Pakistan is defining our
laws and intentions behind them?
For the sake of correction, no one party alone, including Congress
or Gandhi, can be held singularly responsible for Partition. It was a
far more complex phenomenon. Signing off on Partition did not
mean that Gandhi was in unison with Jinnah. Such a statement
ignores historical intricacies surrounding an issue that led to the
largest mass migration in world history and it is apparent how it has
continued to impact the sub-continental politics even today. A
favourite ploy of the Hindutva politics is the emotive ‘correcting
historical wrongs’. One must learn from history but one wrong,
regardless of who committed that, cannot be atoned by another
wrong. The most basic question is what kind of society we want to
build which would be in the interest of all and not some, and one
that would serve the nation’s best interests.
//
The Muslim-majority state of Kashmir and Indian atrocities

On August 5 and 6, the Indian government fueled Hindu nationalism

by abolishing Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which preserved
the special autonomous status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Under the article, the Muslim-majority state of IoK was allowed to

have its constitution, a separate flag and independence over all
matters except defence, foreign affairs and communications.

The abrogation of the article has opened the door for mass Hindu
migration and settlement in IoK which, according to some critics, is
akin to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory.

As the Indian government made the move, people living in the IoK
were subjected to a complete telecommunication blackout amid troop
deployments and curfews meant to suppress rightful protests in the
state.

The situation in Kashmir and the validity of Two-Nation theory

Speaking on the rising of Hindu nationalism in India and the Indian/

Hindu insecurity that has been blatantly displayed in IoK of late,
scholars and historians largely agree that the Two-Nation Theory,
perhaps hold more relevance today than ever before.

According to Dr Huma Baqai, Associate Professor of Social Sciences

and Liberal Arts at the Institute of Business Administration (IBA),
Karachi, one of the worst things that the Indian PM Modi did after
being reelected is using the unprecedented clout to illegally,
immorally and unconstitutionally deprive Kashmir and Kashmiris of
their identity.
“[The abrogation of Article 370] essentially means that even
constitutional guarantees are insufficient to provide Muslims of
Kashmir the protection that is their lawful right — a right granted to
them by the Constitution and the Supreme Court of India,” 

//

IoK curfew to be eased after Thursday: governor

“More importantly one would assume a strong PM like Modi would
not need Pakistan and Muslim bashing to raise his stature, however,
on the ground, [turned out to be the opposite]; the minute he has the
requisite power, he tramples upon Indian secularism, Indian
constitutionalism and, most importantly, Indian democracy paving
way for an extremist Hindu state.”

Dr Baqai added that the damage is irreversible and this proves that
the Two-Nation theory, which became the basis of the creation of
Pakistan, is more relevant today than ever before.

She pointed out that it’s not just Muslims, but all minorities and
vulnerable groups that feel insecure under Modi. The Sikh and
Christians have openly come forward to protect and stand for the
Muslims of Kashmir.

“The tide of extremism Modi is riding upon seems unstoppable. If the

Indian constitution, the sane and the liberals can’t restrain him, then
it seems improbable for the international community to do so either.”

Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, renowned Pakistani political scientist and

military analyst who served as caretaker Chief Minister of Punjab,
agreed that the rising Hinduism-based ultra-nationalism in India,
which is sponsored by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and backed by the Modi
government, has targeted religious minorities, especially Muslims.

“These religiopolitical developments in India prove that Muhammad

Ali Jinnah and his colleagues in the All-India Muslim League were
correct in advocating the Two-Nation theory that maintained that
there were two major nations in British India- the Muslims and
others,” Dr Rizvi opined.

He said that the civilisational and cultural identity of the Muslims,

their civil, political and economic rights and interests were
threatened by an unsympathetic majority in United India. Therefore,
Jinnah rightly argued that the Muslims needed a separate state to
secure their future against the threat of being overwhelmed by a
majority that adopted a non-accommodative and dismissive
disposition towards their identity, rights and interests.

Shedding light on the relevance of the Two-Nation theory under the

current circumstances, Dr Ayesha Jalal, acclaimed South Asian
historian and a Mary Richardson Professor of History at Tufts
University, United States, said that while the theory holds sway
today, it has different meanings for Pakistan and India, therefore, it
shouldn’t be invoked in the abstract.

“I would ground it in a specific period and be clear about what is

being talked about under the rubric of the theory. As for Kashmir, I
would emphasize the extent to which New Delhi’s recent decision and
method of going about it has undermined the principle of federalism
which is ostensibly the basis of the Indian union,” she said.

“If the net result of the BJP government’s high-handedness is a

reaffirmation of the Two-Nation Theory for its adherents, so be it,
but I can assure you that that is not the intention of the BJP duo that
has masterminded this.”