Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 25th, 2016, 06:13 AM   #1
Suspended until February 2nd, 2017
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: Gujarat, Western India
Posts: 559
are Hindus and Muslims are two different Nations ?


In Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on March 22, 1940, he explained:

Quote:
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.
— [30]
In 1944, Jinnah said:

Quote:
We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life.
In an interview with the British journalist Beverley Nichols, he said in 1943:

Quote:
Islam is not only a religious doctrine but also a realistic code of conduct in terms of every day and everything important in life: our history, our laws and our jurisprudence. In all these things, our outlook is not only fundamentally different but also opposed to Hindus. There is nothing in life that links us together. Our names, clothes, food, festivals, and rituals, all are different. Our economic life, our educational ideas, treatment of women, attitude towards animals, and humanitarian considerations, all are very different.
i completely Agree with Mr. Jinnah, what are your views ?

( lease dont give me 2 nation theory failed crap. after 1971 Bangladesh chose to form their own nation shows that this theory is still right/working/alive)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-na...Muslim_leaders
Aham Brahmasmi is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 25th, 2016, 07:09 AM   #2

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,609

Jinnah was himself a confused person first he said Hindus and Muslims are different nations and then after getting Pakistan he wanted to separate religion from state based on secular principles. Even during the Pakistan movement days, he was known for giving conflicting speech between moderate Muslims and religious groups.
Devdas is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 07:26 AM   #3

Aupmanyav's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: New Delhi, India
Posts: 680

He was short of time and he wanted to be the president of a nation. He achieved that. Let people sort out the rest later (Are we not doing that?).
Aupmanyav is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 07:44 AM   #4

Devdas's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: India
Posts: 2,609

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aupmanyav View Post
He was short of time and he wanted to be the president of a nation. He achieved that. Let people sort out the rest later (Are we not doing that?).
The Pakistan was the outcome of the sense of lost of power among North India's Muslim elite which saw the complete decline of their dominance since early 18th century. The unionist later joined it because they feared Congress anti-Zamindari stance.

Last edited by Devdas; December 25th, 2016 at 08:00 AM.
Devdas is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 09:28 AM   #5
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 984

Islam is not just a spiritual religion but comes with a full set of temporal laws. It is therefore a nation unto itself. So Jinnah was correct. (Btw, this is at the root of the problem Islam is currently having).

Hinduism is also pretty similar to Islam in this aspect, especially the Vedic Hinduism. So Jinnah is correct in that too. (Btw, Hinduism has been successful in weeding out many of its temporal laws).
kandal is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 09:58 AM   #6
Archivist
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aham Brahmasmi View Post

i completely Agree with Mr. Jinnah, what are your views ?

( lease dont give me 2 nation theory failed crap. after 1971 Bangladesh chose to form their own nation shows that this theory is still right/working/alive)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-na...Muslim_leaders
Dear Aham Brahmasmi,

Nations are not created based on religion. That era & time has gone. For instance, so many Muslims live in America and are nationals of that country. Almost 99.99% of them would swear loyalty to the American nation and most would say that their understanding of Islam is different than that currently prevailing among some sections of Muslims who are taking to terrorist activities across the world [1]. My view is that most of the Muslims in America are happy and relieved to have received American nationality. In America - which is one of the most diverse countries in the world - feeling of nationalism exists because [i] all the citizens owe allegiance to the Constitution, [ii] there is Rule of Law, and of course, there are [iii] good systems for maintaining law & order and [iv] economic prosperity as well. These four are magnets for uniting people - together they are more powerful than any religion.

Since you want to avoid the example of Bangladesh we will drop it. There are still other examples to show that religious unity should not be confused with feeling of nationalism. Take for example Europe - though mostly Christian - it divided into many nations. Common religion did not keep it together [2]. This applies for the Muslim countries also, in which religion is same but they are divided into may be about 40 or 50 countries. In fact some of the Muslims nations are at war with each other and/or are busy waging bloody civil wars. Anyway, each of the nations in Europe & among Muslim countries wants independence and has a national identity.

Jinnah was initially a member of Indian National Congress and was agnostic, above religion. He was basically a secular man like Nehru. Both these leaders were not religious in any sense of the word.

Jinnah was not a practicing Muslim in terms of saying prayers or going to Mosque. He normally wore a European style suit (but later in AIML circles wore his typical refined Musalman's dress). He was a chain smoker till death, drank everyday, and most probably broke the most important food-related prohibition in Islam. His social circle was largely non-Muslim - read about his last marriage and marriage of his daughter. All this about Jinnah does not sound very Islamic. Jinnah's fight was for personal power - to become the head of a country. Nehru was his competitor in India whom he could not shake away. So Jinnah sided with the conservative Islamic people in India. AIML is where he got recognition & respect which was not-available / denied to him in Indian National Congress.

Today even in "Islamic Republic" of Pakistan there are examples that something is needed to bring stronger national identity or else it could suffer further pain. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province even in 1947 did not want to join Pakistan. Most of the terror activities which keep shaking Pakistan now-a-days arise from this province. Baluchistan province has a strong movement for separation. It is economically neglected though has maximum land, minerals, and strategic value (exact parallel of Bangladesh case-study).

People of Sindh and Punjab provinces are Indic speakers and ethnically different from the previously mentioned Baloch in Baluchistan & Pathans in KP who are Iranian linguistically. Even within the ethnically Indic group, Sindh has a more refined culture than Punjab - at least the people of Sindh feel so. POK, though having same religion still has no real democracy.

There are enough problems on Pakistan's plate which challenge its identity and expose fault-lines in its national identity even though about 98% people are Muslims. Its problems are compounded because of dual government - upper layer consisting of Pakistan Army and lower layer consisting of elected leaders intermittently.

India too has its own share problems with national identity but these are perhaps less severe than Pakistan. The working democracy in India ensures that solutions get hammered and that economic prosperity increases faster (absence of working democracy was the missing factor in Pakistan which resulted in creation of Bangladesh - ouch!).

Anyway at the cost of repeating one can say that: religious unity should not be confused with feeling of nationalism. Religion based paradigm is outdated I believe. National identities are evolving in both countries.

We need to look beyond also. Several modern intellectuals believe that even nationalism is outdated in contemporary world.

Good luck

Rajeev

[1] President-elect Trump has sworn to set right if there are any in the 0.001% in America who have doubtful allegiance and also rest of the terrorists in the world.

[2] Even recently in UK when voting on Brexit was going on there was an issue that one part was clearly against Brexit.

Last edited by Rajeev; December 25th, 2016 at 10:57 AM.
Rajeev is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 10:28 AM   #7
Hellenist
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 4,054
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aham Brahmasmi View Post
In Muhammad Ali Jinnah's All India Muslim League presidential address delivered in Lahore, on March 22, 1940, he explained:


 [30]
In 1944, Jinnah said:



In an interview with the British journalist Beverley Nichols, he said in 1943:



i completely Agree with Mr. Jinnah, what are your views ?

( lease dont give me 2 nation theory failed crap. after 1971 Bangladesh chose to form their own nation shows that this theory is still right/working/alive)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-na...Muslim_leaders
One reason the US has guaranteed freedom of religion is several colonies were exclusive to a particular set of religious notions, and when they came in contact with each other, they killed each other! And we come from a long history of Catholics and Protestants making war on each other. Being tolerant or intolerant of differences is learned.

I much prefer being secular and having democracy, to religious control of anything, and all people can learn to live with the principles of reason. They can believe different, but come together with reason.

The Indians of the north east of north America have a legend about a man who came and taught them to live with reason. We do not have to think of this as reasoning coming from Athens or exclusive to the United States. It is reasoning anyone can follow, and I do not comprehend why any have a problem with being reasonable and resolving differences?
athena is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 10:29 AM   #8
Suspended until February 11th, 2017
 
Joined: Mar 2014
From: Mount Olympus
Posts: 355

Jinnah could be barely be considered a Muslim himself, he drank alcohol, had a fondness for pork sausages and was a womanizer. That's why is especially funny to see religious and conservative Pakistanis treat Jinnah as some sort of heroic figure.
TomarRajput is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 11:53 AM   #9
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA
Posts: 984

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomarRajput View Post
Jinnah could be barely be considered a Muslim himself, he drank alcohol, had a fondness for pork sausages and was a womanizer. That's why is especially funny to see religious and conservative Pakistanis treat Jinnah as some sort of heroic figure.
Jinnah was not a devout Muslim like many westernized Muslims in habits and behaviors, but still very much Muslim at heart.
kandal is offline  
Old December 25th, 2016, 12:31 PM   #10

Bullit's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Nov 2016
From: Pakistan
Posts: 156

The short answer is 'No'. The Two Nation Theory was just a shallow marketing exercise which ran out when the goal was achieved in 1947 and lacked any intellectual merit. It had no currency beyond it's goal.

I can imagine Jinnah having stiff brandy and after a big puff on his cigar chuckling away. He had very cleverly harvested this fact (below) for a very decidely political goal -

"If there is one thing which has been conclusively demonstrated in this inquiry, it is that provided you can persuade the masses to believe that something they are asked to do is religiously right or enjoined by religion, you can set them to any course of action, regardless of all considerations of discipline, loyalty, decency, morality or civic sense."

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/p...irreport_1954/


Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by Bullit; December 25th, 2016 at 12:42 PM.
Bullit is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
hindus, muslims, nations



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ghurids were not Hindus Azad67 Asian History 51 December 22nd, 2016 05:04 AM
Why Kashmiri Hindus look distinctly different from Kashmiri muslims? Azad67 Asian History 24 May 6th, 2016 05:02 PM
Is the United Nations just as big of a fail as the League of Nations Was? PinkPanter456 General History 49 April 10th, 2013 05:42 AM
Hindus Fought in Karbala! Jhangora War and Military History 4 December 8th, 2012 09:49 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.