Daily Times: Hindus and Muslims had maintained largely separate existences despite living side by side. That they did not inter-dine or intermarry was not Jinnah’s doing nor was the Hindu pani and Muslim pani, and the Hindu and Muslim gymkhanas Jinnah’s idea
Let us for the purpose of this article disregard the theory that Jinnah was using the Pakistan demand as a bargaining counter, despite incontrovertible evidence that has been noted by almost every historian who has revisited the issue of partition since the documents regarding partition were declassified in the 1970s. Instead, let us stick to the basics: Jinnah wanted to create Pakistan and Jinnah created Pakistan.
Shahid’s argument is predicated on the misunderstanding that the two-nation theory stated that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist, which is not true. This is a common misunderstanding that has been associated with the two-nation theory but it certainly has nothing to do with the two-nation theory as Jinnah understood it. In January 1940, Jinnah wrote an article called ‘The constitutional maladies of India’ in which he first articulated the two-nation theory, which, mind you, had been articulated by others long before him. In it he argued that Hindus and Muslims were two nations and that these two nations had to work together and “share in the governance of their common motherland”, i.e. India, so that India could emerge as a “great nation”.
Categories: Asia
The theory of Mr. jinnah was proved right by the bad treatment of the migrating Muslims and killings in East Punjab and Bengal. The massacre that took place in India of poor Muslims and some successful injustice perpetrated by the government of India in Kashmir and Deccan proved that the two nations could not live happily together. Thank God that India was divided.
In any case, according to the International law, every nation needed to have a country, a home land. The division of India could only be avoided if it was proved that the Hindus and Muslims of India were one nation. Every one knows that they were not one nation. That was due to the mistreatment of Muslims by the majority Hindu population.
The people of India were divided on the basis of religion. They could live well under a foreign government but not under their own (Hindu or Muslim) government. They could live under the British or Chinese or American government.
The best thing was to each one have a homeland of their own. That was with the good intention. Jinnah sahib had said that religion should have nothing to do with the politics of the country. That was the good way but Pakistan people did not follow that.
The Indian government was strict and held on to secular form of government. That was very good work and they gained much progress due to that. Because that was the right course.
At the same time, the Indian government did much damage to Pakistan which was a neighboring country. That was not good of them. It created some hurdles for the Indian government as well as for Pakistan. The Indian government had achieved some success in some matters but it was not good for them. What the future holds is not known. The best policy for the Indian government was to help and support the Pakistani people with justice and win the hearts of the Pakistani people. If the Pakistanis did not respond well with love then Indian government could punish and harm them. Even now, it would be the best policy for peace and progress in the subcontinent that India as big brother should extend real help to Pakistan to remove doubts and fear of war.
The Indian government is doing very well (good work) for progress of Indian nation.
Dear Mr. Hamdani
I just read your excellent rebuttal to the article: ’Jinnah, Bhutto and the legacy of intolerance’ in Daily Times, December 22, 2013 by Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, in which he accused Quaid-e-Azam for having left behind a legacy of intolerance.
I have also read all comments by the Indian bigots and the self hating Pakistanis who not only use vulgar language but out of context arguments.
I am so grategul that you have taken the task of showing these ignorant persons a mirror, in which they can see their own prejudices and lack of historical facts. I wish that there were more like you who could challenge such pathetic efforts to malign the name of noble Quaid who single handedly created the country, with whose name 200 million Pakistanis have an identity.I remeber the moment, when I left Pakistan to study in 1967 and I proud I was to tell the world that I was a Pakistani. I have the same tender feelings today.
I personally believe that Jinnah’s demand for a separate homeland for Muslims of Hindustan (the pre-partition and original name of India) came in to play when he realized that a Hindu majority India would treat Muslims as second-class citizens in a united Bharat. First because Muslims ruled the country for 1000 years and secondly, Hinduism is based on cast system where Muslims were and are treated as unwanted.
I have lots of Muslim friends in India and I can tell you that their miserable socio-economic situation and the discrimination, they experience, is ample proof that Quaid’s insistence in demanding a homeland for down trodden Muslims of Hindustan was a prophecy, timely fulfilled. Seeing as to what is happening to Indian Muslims in general, I am proud that my family left Hindustan and came back to Pakistan where they could be master of their own destiny. Pakistan with all its faults, shortcomings and troubles is a better place to live than India.
I recently read the book: Jinnah – India partition -independence by Jaswant Singh. People should read it to understand, who made the partition unavoidable.
In his book, Mr. Singh also argues that far from being set on a separate Pakistan, Jinnah’s overwhelming concern was the well being of his fellow Muslims, who were in a minority. He wanted to ensure they would have “space in a reassuring system”.
I want you to know that there are many Pakistanis who share your views and appreciate your work, while I simply do not understand the newspaper: Daily Time’s motives to start this silly debate on Jinnah’s motives for demanding Pakistan. Without Quaid, there would be no Pakistan, no Daily Mail and no discussion. Instead, it would be an Akhand Bharat.
Bashy Quraishy
Chief Editor-Media Watch – Copenhagen