The Two-Nation Theory, a Political Analysis
By Syed Osman Sher
Mississauga, Canada
Explaining the raison d’etre of Pakistan, Arif Hussaini in his article Reflections on the Idea of Pakistan, March 19, emphasizes the existence of two nations in the Indian sub-continent. He argues that the Muslims invaded India many times, and lived here for centuries, but due to the Brahmin’s bad treatment calling them mallechha, or impure or dirty, we remained a nation separate from the Hindus. So the Muslim nation had, per force, to create a new country for itself, called Pakistan. The Two-Nation Theory stood further justified by its own destruction because when Bangladesh was created it could not be merged with India. ‘Two’ is the reality, and it continues to be so even when it becomes ‘Three.’ The yardstick of nationhood is thus purely religion.
We often forget that most of the Muslims living in the sub-continent are converted and belong to the soil. Only a minority of Muslims had come from outside. By calling ourselves a separate nation we stamp ourselves as occupier of the land, who ruled as alien masters over the Hindus. The question is: Were the Muslims who settled here and made this country their home along with the majority who converted were Indians or not before the Partition? There can be three aspects of this issue, political, social, and consequential. Below is its analysis from political angle.
We very well know that the imperial British have been very faithful to their old colonial policy of ‘divide and rule'. They had great expertise in sowing seeds of dissension with such ferocity and perfection that once they left, the colonies were torn asunder politically, geographically and socially, and remained enmeshed in dissension for decades. Take only a few examples of today: India-Pakistan; Palestine-Israel; Cyprus ( Greece and Turkish); and the most glaring skeleton in their own cupboard, Northern Ireland. The latest example is that of Hong Kong. Democracy, which was a taboo for the British for one hundred and fifty years, was introduced in Hong Kong helter-skelter at the time of their departure despite the Chinese government’s protest. It was meant obviously to leave a permanent pain in the neck of the so-called undemocratic China. But the wise Chinese did not let the Hong Kong affair turn into a headache.
Immediately after the War of Independence of 1857, or the so-called Sepoy Mutiny, the East India Company appointed a commission of enquiry on the uprising with a view to making recommendations to preserve the British power. Lord Elphinstone, a very experienced civil servant of the Company and the then governor of Bombay, sent a note to the commission: ‘Divide et impera was the old Roman motto, and it should be ours’. Thereafter, the administrative policies and actions, combined with official and unofficial oratories were so maneuvered that subsequently the Indian nation really felt divided into two. British administrators and writers perpetuated a repertoire of such images, construing Islam as an emblem of repellent otherness, ‘the faith of a body of savage marauders and conquerors’, while romanticizing the ‘golden age of Hinduism’, encouraging Hindu revivalism.
The first administrative step taken to 'divide and rule' was to separate the 562 “princely states”, the first loyal segment, from the rest of India. They were specially mentioned as a favored class in the Queen's Proclamation, by allowing them to enter into direct treaty relationship with the Crown. Later, in a letter of March 3, 1862, the Secretary of State, Sir Charles Wood, instructed the Viceroy Lord Elgin: ‘We have maintained our power by playing off one part against the other, and we must continue to do so … Do what you can, therefore, to prevent all having a common feeling.’ And, again on 10 May, Wood wrote: ‘We cannot afford in India to neglect any means of strengthening our position. Depend upon it, the natural antagonism of races is no inconsiderable element of our strength. If all India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves?’
Since India was snatched from the Muslims, they were treated as enemies in the first place. Later, considering the strong possibility that the Hindus by virtue of their superior numbers, wealth or education, would come to dominate India’s nascent institutions, successive Viceroys changed the position of pushing up the Hindus in the social and political life of India, and began supporting a policy which was less anti-Muslim. Though in minority, the Muslims were in no way a lesser entity. They still wielded considerable power in the society. Hence they could not be alienated for long. It was, therefore, appropriate that they be enlisted ‘as allies and auxiliaries.’
For this purpose, fortunately, the person of Syed Ahmad Khan came in handy. The concept of Muslim-British cooperation, which had looked odd a few years ago, turned into an idea of inter-dependence. Afraid of the Hindu majority he showered praise on the British rule, and wished its continuation. In his zeal to work for the interest of the Muslims, he unfortunately became instrumental in weakening the spirit of Indian nationalism. In 1892, when it came to giving some rights of franchise to the native people for electing represen t atives to local bodies he even showed an attitude which may be termed as undemocratic. Sir Syed expressed his fear that “the system of representation by election means the representation of the views and interests of the majority of the population…. [which] would totally override the interests of the smaller community.” According to him, a democratic regime meant Hindu rule. Writing in 1888 under the topic, the ‘Present State of Indian Politics’ in the Pioneer, he said: ‘I have often said that India is like a bride whose two eyes are the Hindu and the Mohammedan. Her beauty consists in this - that the two eyes be of equal luster’. So beautifully said, this statement was definitely a pointer towards the existence of two ‘equal’ nations living in India.
On 1 October, 1906 a petition was presented to Lord Minto at Shimla by a deputation comprising thirty-five self-appointed representatives of 62 million Muslims consisting of nobles, jagirdars, talukdars, lawyers, zamindars and merchants, under the leadership of Sir Aga Khan, expressing the same old fear about what democracy would mean for the Muslims; it was likely ‘among other evils, to place our national interests at the mercy of unsympathetic majority’. Lord Minto assured them that “in any system of representation…in which it is proposed to introduce or increase an electoral organization, the Mahommedan community should be represented as a community and you justly claim that your position should be estimated not merely on your numerical strength but in respect to the political importance of your community and the service it has rendered to the Empire…I am entirely in accord with you.”
Lord Minto proved true to his promise. At the second reading of the Indian Councils Bill in the House of Lords on February 23, 1909, which granted Separate Electorate to the Muslims, the Secretary of State, Viscount Morley, argued thus: ’Only let us not forget that the difference between Mahomedanism and Hinduism is not a mere difference of articles of religious faith. It is a difference in life, in tradition, in history, in all the social things as well as the articles of belief that constitute a community . By this Act, an active process of division of the country had started. Muslims now wore a new socio-religious identity, like a caste or a tribe, separate from the mainstream of Indian nationhood, and contended with others for patronage and privileges.
At the Muslim League session of March 1940, Muhammad Ali Jinnah took the words from the mouth of Viscount Morley uttered 31 years ago declaring the Muslims a separate nation by the same account, and demanding the division of the country. Such a demand appears to be quite strange, unique in the annals of political struggle.
First, it was a demand not by the inhabitants of a specific area to grant them a separate homeland, rather more forcefully by about one-third of those Muslims who never intended to live in the new country.
Second, history has shown that break-up of a country is an extreme measure and the people who wanted, and those who did not, both had to plunge into blood-baths. In this case the concerned parties agreed to the division of the country without going through the necessary trauma.
Third, a demand for separation is made when the minority community is oppressed by the majority. In this case, the majority had no yet been in power and they had not the occasion to brutalize the minority.
Fourth, in 1947, the power structure of the country was like this: The Hindus accounted for about 70 per cent of population, hence numerically were very strong; the British owned 100 per cent of armed and administrative power, hence were the owner of absolute authority; the Muslim population was less than 25 per cent. Surprisingly, the weakest party had won the war despite the common belief that the real powers of India, the Hindus and the British, were against partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
