Two Nation

From the Newspaper Dawn, of Pakistan

The ifs and buts of history
By Irfan Husain

Of late, there has been much controversy over the two-nation theory sparked off by Altaf Hussain. The MQM chief is reported to have asserted in India that this theory was invalid.I have often disagreed strongly with the self-exiled leader, but find his secular, anti-feudal stance refreshing. So while many voices in the mainstream media have condemned some of his statements as inflammatory and even traitorous, they do merit serious examination.

Let us start with the basics: a theory is a working hypothesis until it is proved or disproved by experience and experiment in the field and in the laboratory.

In essence, the two-nation theory enunciated by the top Muslim League leadership as the ideological basis for the demand for Pakistan stated that as Muslims and Hindus were two different nations, they needed separate homelands.Mr Jinnah is on record as saying that as the two communities spoke different languages, ate different food, had different customs, and, above all, followed different religions, they constituted two entirely different nations.

The outcome of this theory and the political and territorial demand that emanated from it was the creation of Pakistan. Obviously, history cannot be rewritten, but it is still useful to examine the theory and see whether it stands up to analysis based on the experience gained since it was first articulated.

I have been mulling over this theme over the last week while travelling around in South India. Here, I have met a number of Muslims, and in their patchy Hindi and English, they have made it clear that they are completely at home, and get on very well with their Hindu and Christian neighbours.This morning, a Sunday, I was on a boat in the back waters of Kerala, and could see the minarets of a mosque among the coconut palms. But the sound I heard was the sound of bells from a nearby church. A day earlier, our group drove past a large Hindu congregation. And just in case some readers feel sorry for the Muslims of Kerala, let me remind them that the oldest continuous community of Muslims in the subcontinent live right here.

They have integrated seamlessly into the fabric of the area, and do not see their faith as an issue. Their Hindu and Christian neighbours visit them at Eid, just as they celebrate Holi and Christmas with their friends.How can these different communities be separated? They speak the same language, are ethnically of the same stock, and while orthodox Hindus may be vegetarians, they cook in the identical, delicious Kerala style. Until you ask them directly, it is impossible to tell who is Hindu, who is Muslim and who is Christian.

This brings us to a fundamental question: what defines a person? Surely not religion alone, although it is an important factor. Education, upbringing, geography, class and genes are just a few of the ingredients making up the complex matrix that is a human being.

Invariably, where we grow up is largely a matter of chance. A universal genetic lottery determines the circumstances in which we grow up. We cannot help being born black, white or yellow, any more than we can decide the faith into which we are born. And once born, we often have little control over the future.Since the whole business of life is so random, can we say that we are superior to anybody else? Or so different that we cannot live next to them? Because that, in essence, is what the two-nation theory is about.

It is clear that in his demand for Pakistan, Mr Jinnah never envisaged the mass transfer of populations partition would trigger. Indeed, he was deeply sickened by the death and destruction that accompanied the birth of Pakistan.

But as Ayesha Jalal demonstrates in her seminal book The Sole Spokesman, the demand for Pakistan was initially a bargaining position for Mr Jinnah. The fact that he accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan calling for a confederation as late as 1946 indicates that he was prepared for a compromise until the very last moment.
It was only after the Congress leadership dilly dallied and raised objections that positions hardened and the creation of Pakistan became inevitable. The whole question of separateness was raised a hundred years ago by the Muslim aristocracy when the British were planning local elections.

Fearing being swamped by a Hindu majority, they petitioned their British overlords into agreeing to holding elections under a system of separate electorates, with Muslims voting for their own candidates.

This was the beginning of communal politics in India, and led willy-nilly to the demand for, and creation of, Pakistan. So far, this has been a somewhat academic discussion of past events that cannot be changed. But what implications does the two-nation theory have for the future?

For me, the concept of being unable to live next door to somebody because he has a different faith, or language, or appearance is intolerant and bigoted. And if Muslims cannot live with Hindus one day, West Pakistanis will be unable to live with Bengalis the next day, and Sunnis will be unable to live with Shias the following day.

Where does this logic lead us? Clearly, the demand for Pakistan was based on the perceived need to protect Muslim interests in the face of a Hindu majority after the British left. But if no transfer of population was contemplated, surely not much thought was given to the plight of the Muslims of India once Pakistan had come into being. And if they have been at a disadvantage in certain parts of India - and, indeed, suffered violence in sporadic riots - our own aggressive policies must be partly to blame.

One demographic aspect we need to consider is that currently, the subcontinent has a combined Muslim population of half a billion out of a total of 1.5 billion. This is not a small minority to kick around.However, it must not be forgotten that in an undivided India, the area that constitutes Pakistan today would have remained a backwater. Before 1947, it was the least developed part of the subcontinent, and it is doubtful that much of Sindh, Balochistan, the NWFP and southern Punjab would have received much attention and resources in a united India.

Now when we are critical of the slow progress we think we have made, we forget the vast physical infrastructure that has been put in place. The two-nation theory served its purpose and has brought about the creation of Pakistan. It is time we laid it to rest.