The Two-Nation
Theory
By Pervaiz Alvi
US
In
the context of the British Indian Empire the two-nation
theory emerged as an ideology that ultimately
resulted in the formation of a separate and independent
state of Pakistan outside the Union of Indian
states. Yet 58 years after the creation of Pakistan
(now Pakistan and Bangladesh) this ideology is
still being debated. One of the questions being
asked is: was the theory regarding the existence
of two nations within the geographical boundaries
of British Indian Empire genuine or bogus? In
other words, did two different nations exist within
the boundaries of the vast empire that was put
together by a far off colonial power? The answer
to this question lies in the history of the sub-continent.
About a millennium ago the South Asian sub-continent
was inhabited by people who spoke many languages,
had various cultures and lifestyles, and belonged
to various small and large tribes, nations and
states. Even though from time to time one tribe
or nation subjugated others and established a
larger state or even a dynastical empire, there
never was a singular country or state called India.
In fact it were the outsiders who gave the sub-continent
the name India or Hind and called its inhabitants
Hindus.
Hind is an Arabic word meaning dark that was much
later anglicized by the Europeans as Hindia or
India. Hindu is a Persian word meaning a dark
skinned person. Racially the inhabitants of this
landmass were mostly either the light skinned
dominant Aryans or the dark skinned Dravidians
subjugated by the Aryans. Upon their arrival into
the sub-continent, the Aryans had established
a rigid social order commonly known as The Caste
System under which one’s social status was
fixed by birth. The Dravidians, who were the original
natives of the sub-continent, were relegated to
the lowest social status under this system. The
Aryans also established a religious order based
on a complex multi-god system. It was not one
singular religion but a set of mythical stories
and believes collected over a long time period.
There is no historical evidence that this set
of beliefs was called Hinduism by its adherents.
Under this belief system access to the gods was
through the members of the upper
caste Brahmans, the class of children of god Brahma.
Historians had called this set of beliefs as Brahmanism.
Now enters another group into the matrix of South
Asia.
First Arabs in the eighth century and then Turks
and Persians from tenth century onward systematically
started to invade, occupy and rule the sub-continent
and its inhabitants. In the wake of the early
invaders came economic opportunity, immigrants
and religious teachers and scholars from the lands
of Arabia, Persia and Central Asia. The newcomers
brought with them their own languages, cultures,
races and religion. Even though diversified as
a group, the newcomers had one thing in common:
the religion Islam. Collectively, they called
themselves Muslims and the locals, derogatorily,
as Hindus. Later joining the ranks of the Muslims
of Non-South Asian origin were the local converts
to Islam, unhappy with the low-caste status given
to them by their society. This process of conquest,
immigration and conversion continued till the
eighteenth century, finally changing the demographics
of South Asia forever.
The beliefs and way of life of the monotheist
Muslims and the polytheist Hindus were not only
different but completely at odds with each other.
The two groups lived side-by-side for centuries
but never dined together or even touched or freely
intermarried one another. In the presence of the
other group, in spite of their internal differences,
each group banded together with their co-religionists
under their separate banners, one as Muslims and
the other as Hindus. At the end of the nineteenth
century within South Asia their numbers were too
large and their distribution too complex to consider
them as two simple communities of Hindus and Muslims
belonging to one Indian nation. The population
of the sub-continent had mushroomed and developed
into various large groups existing within its
boundaries, each demanding its own share of political
and economic power within its own areas of dominance.
Their leaders tried to work out various formulas
of power sharing but failed to agree on any one
solution. At the end, the fact that they were
two distinct groups that could not share political
power under one system, set them on separate courses.
To call them two nations, one Muslim and other
Hindu of South Asia, is perhaps an over simplification
of the complex makeup of the sub-continent. It
will be more realistic to consider them as groups
of nations of South Asia comprising of communities
of Muslims, Hindus and others. Regardless which
denominator is used to define South Asia, one
thing is for sure: one nation it is not. In fact
if European standards of nationhood are applied,
then it could be easily argued that the sub-continent
is inhabited not by one, two or three but by many
nations. In the absence of the political pressures
exerted by the Indian Congress, perhaps on their
departure, the colonial masters would have divided
the empire into many states along its ethnic or
national lines. It was the insistence of the Hindus
of the Congress that the British must hand over
the entire empire to them alone that the Muslims
came up with the theory of two nations. The Muslims
wanted their fair share of power. Since power
comes with land, insistence on being a separate
nation and demand for a separate homeland for
this nation was only a natural outcome of their
struggle. Let us put this debate of one-nation,
two-nation or three-nation theories to rest.
Muslims of Punjab, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan,
Pushtoon areas and Bengal did not consider themselves
as part of an Indian nation if ever there was
one. They considered themselves as a separate
Muslim nation or nations of South Asia. Today
the first five have grouped together to form one
Muslim nation under the federation of Pakistan.
The latter one is now Muslim state Bangladesh.
The rest of the Indian states have formed a Union
of Indian states where Indian Muslims enjoy full
rights of their citizenship. One fails to understand
then why there is so much fuss about one, two
or three nations within the sub-continent.
Nationalism is not an absolute truth but an abstract
concept and ideology that could be defined in
many ways. Nations could be based upon any combination
of factors such as common religion, race, geography,
language or simple conviction of certain group
of people to be one nation. The complex makeup
of the sub-continent does not allow it to be one
singular nation. On the contrary, its internal
dynamics demand it to be sliced up in many ways.
One must not be surprised if fifty or hundred
years from now there are six or seven independent
states within the boundaries of the old British
Indian Empire!
At the end we must remember that we are what we
want to be and what we think ourselves as. If
a group or groups of people consider themselves
as a nation then they are one, and if they do
not think as one, then they are not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
