2008 September « Pakistan Historian

September 20, 2008

5000 Years ago Pakistan existed as the Indus Valley Civilization

Filed under: Indus Valley Civilization, Two Nation Theory — Moin Ansari @ 6:33 pm
Tags: Add new tag, Harappa, Indus Valley Civilization, Meluha, Moenjodaro, Pakistan

Long before the Crescent and Star flew atop Islamabad, long before Mohammed Bin Qasim invaded Sind, and long before the Mughals spread prosperity in all the nooks and corners of the subcontinent, long before the Sikh dynasty briefly controlled Kashmir, and long before the Chundra Gupta Vikramadatya ruled India, the people of Punjab, Sindh, Sarhad, and Kashmir were tied together as the people of Pakistan.

IVC existed only in the Western part of the subcontinent, almost exclusively on the banks of the Indus (current day Pakistan). Therefore current day Pakistanis are inheritors of the IVC. There was a civilization in present day Pakistan. “India” did not exist 5000 years ago. The Sumerians called it Meluhha and Mekan. We don’t know what they called it. No one can be sure. “Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago in the IVC, even though the IVC probably did not call it Pakistan.

One cannot accept the Lebanese, and the Syrian, and Cypriotic claim to the Egyptian civilization, and one cannot accept the Japanese claim to the original Chinese civilization. Similarly once cannot accept the “Indian” claim to the IVC. The “Indian” claim to the IVC is by association. The Egyptian claim to the “Egyptian” civilization is by geography.

$IVC. This is the land of the Indus which existed on the Indus. It is \$ The beliefs of the IVC are totally irrelevant to the inheritors of the IVC. There is no conclusive proof of the beliefs of the IVC. Bainerjee and Sir Edmund Hill, the two founding archeologists on the IVC clearly state in their writings, that the IVC people did not have any organized religion. No “Temples” have been discovered either in Moenjadaro or in Harappa or in Taxila. The ancient IVC culture, whether they worshipped anything or nothing is besides the point. The current day Egyptians are the inheritors of the ancient Egyptian civilization. The current day Egyptians are also Muslim. Are they going to be denied the right to claim the Egyptian civilization, just because they are Muslim? If one denies the Pakistanis the inheritance to the IVC, then you should go and challenge the Egyptians also. The ancient Egyptians ALSO participated in rituals that were Un-Islamic.

THE GEOGRAPHIC TWO NATION THEORY:

“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago: What was it called 5000 years ago?

These maps clearly show the existance of Pakistan 5000 years ago as the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC).

The IVC traded with areas contiguous to it and to places as far as Hawaii.

This map shows more than 570 states in the Subcontinent. At this particular stage of the British Raj over the hundreds of states, most of Pakistan is not part of the Raj.

These maps tell us about the Pakistan the people of the Subcontinent struggled for, and asked for. It shows the Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent.

This is the Indus Valley Civilization (Pakistan) which we have right now. Compared to the map of the IVC 5000 years ago, it is very similar. The Indus Valley Civilization is a living and thriving civilization and it exists today as Pakistan, just like Pakistan existed as the IVC thousands of years ago.

The first Pakistani implements have been discovered in Soan River valley dating back 150,000 years. Mehergarh in Baluchistan is the oldest arable land dating back 7000 years ago. This frame by frame evolution of Pakistan begining 4000BC. From the Indus Valley the Pakistani civilization helped evolve the Gangetic civilizaiton in India which came hundreds of years later. During the British reign the Subcontinent was broken up into more than 570 states. When the British left the states on the Indus banded together to form Paksitan, and those on the Gangetic vally got together to from “Bharat” (official name in the constitution).

PAKISTAN AS INHERITOR OF THE IVC
Let us see what the encyclopedias says about the Indus Valley and Pakistan:

Present-day Pakistan shares the 5,000-year history of the India-Pakistan Subntinent. At present day Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, the Indus Valley Civilization, with large cities and elaborate irrigation systems, flourished c. 4,000-2,500 BC. Beginning with the Persians in the 6th century BC, and continuing with Alexander the Great and with the Sassanians, successive nations to the west ruled or influenced Pakistan, eventually separating the area from the Indian cultural sphere.The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1994

Pakistan (pàk´î-stàn´, pä´kî-stän´) Abbr. Pak.
A country of southern Asia. Occupying land crisscrossed by ancient invasion paths, Pakistan was the home of the prehistoric Indus Valley civilization, which flourished until overrun by Aryans c. 1500 B.C. After being conquered by numerous rulers and powers, it passed to the British as part of India and became a separate Moslem state in 1947. The country originally included what is now Bangladesh, which declared its independence in 1971. Islamabad is the capital and Karachi the largest city. Population, 83,782,000. – Pak´istan´i (-stàn´ê, -stä´nê) adjective & noun

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

Indus valley civilization, c.2500-c.1500 B.C., ancient civilization that flourished along the Indus R. in present-day Pakistan. Its chief cities were Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, where archaeologists have unearthed impressive public and private buildings that are evidence of a complex society based on a highly organized agriculture supplemented by active commerce. The arts flourished, and examples in copper, bronze, and pottery have been uncovered. Also found were examples of a pictograph script that long baffled archaeologists but was finally deciphered in 1969. The fate of the Indus valley civilization remains a mystery, but it is believed that it fell victim to invading Aryans.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia

An urban civilization with a so-far-undeciphered writing system stretched across the Indus Valley and along the Arabian Sea c3000-1500 BC. Major sites are Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro in Pakistan, well-planned geometric cities with underground sewers and vast granaries. The entire region (600,000 sq. mi.) may have been ruled as a single state. Bronze was used, and arts and crafts were highly developed. Religious life apparently took the form of fertility cults.

Indus civilization was probably in decline when it was destroyed by Aryan invaders from the northwest, speaking an Indo-European language from which all the languages of Pakistan, north India and Bangladesh descend. Led by a warrior aristocracy whose legendary deeds are recorded in the Rig Veda, the Aryans spread east and south, bringing their pantheon of sky gods, elaborate priestly (Brahmin) ritual, and the beginnings of the caste system; local customs and beliefs were assimilated by the conquerors.

The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1994

Indus (în´des), chief river of Pakistan, c.1,900 mi (3,060 km) long, site of the prehistoric INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION. It rises in the TIBET region of China, flows west across Jammu and KASHMIR, India, then southwest through Pakistan, where it receives the “five waters” of the PUNJAB (the Chenab, Jhelum, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej rivers), to an infertile clay delta on the Arabian Sea SE of Karachi. The unnavigable Indus is harnessed for irrigation and hydroelectricity by the Jinnah, Sukker, and Kotri dams. A treaty (1960) between India and Pakistan regulates withdrawals of water from the river and its tributaries.

The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia Anthropologists have observed that the present population of …Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar 4000 years ago. Linguistically the present day population of Gujrat and Punjab belongs to the Indo-Aryan language speaking group. The only inference that can be drawn from the anthropological and linguistic evidences adduced above is that the Harappan population in the Indus Valley and Gujrat in 2000 BC was composed of two or more groups, the more dominent among them having very close ethnic affinities with the present day Indo-Aryan speaking population of India.

I call this the GEOGPRAHIC TWO NATION THEORY…and when I originally proposed it and posted it on the SCI it was met with a lot of hostility….Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan has now written a book on this subject Aitzaz Ahsan’s Indus run.

Some more water has gone down the Indus since Aitzaz Ahsan published his book. As the Indus does not flow – at least not so far – in the Washington area, it is only natural that the book which was placed in a bottle and consigned to the waters by the author somewhere near Wazirabad has only found its way to these shores in the last few days.

The Indus reminds me of many good things. There used to be a watering hole at the hotel on The Mall in Lahore, which bears the name of the river, from whose cool recesses one summer afternoon, I had been summoned by the incomparable Prof G.M. Asar who by the time I arrived was in a most delightfully loquacious frame of mind, declaiming poetry in his rich and measured voice. His diction was so perfect that you could just learn English by listening to him, or Urdu for that matter.

But that is not the Indus Aitzaz Ahsan frequents – and who can blame him considering what has become of it. Or has written about. His book is about the river and the region that now makes up Pakistan, what he calls the Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient. His thesis, spun out over 350 pages, is simple but is it also true? One has to think because it is so perfectly formed, with no rough edges.

Truth, on the other hand, is often less meticulously packaged and is far more awkward to handle. Being the consummate lawyer the author is, the case is brilliantly argued.

Whether that makes him right as well is an open question. The basic idea of the book is that India and Indus have always been two distinct entities or regions in terms of civilisation and culture, their differences being “primordial and many”. Religion has not been the dividing line, only one of the factors. And since there was and is an Indus, there is also an “Indus person” who, poor creature, is the mess he is today because he has been “deprived of his heroes, nay, of himself and he has not gained much in the bargain.” So what is he then? The answer, if it please their lordships, is that “……he remains a family man, an enlightened non-fundamentalist Muslim, and a brave soldier (I knew there were khakis lurking somewhere in there)…. he is an ostentatious consumerist, a bad administrator and devoid of civic sense and responsibility.” That does it for me. Consumerist is best rendered by the national. Punjabi philosophy: Khao, piyo te jan banao. Or eat, drink and develop your biceps. Or one better:

Khao, piyo te paghrai na dyo. Eat, drink and don’t get caught.

The author tells us that apart from poets, mystics and warriors, it is the River Indus and its tributaries that have shaped the Indus person. Since no one is perfect, this being has developed certain defects, though none that cannot be cured. The book has been an attempt to highlight his strengths and develop his original potential. Once that happens, there is no reason why the Indus person and the India person cannot live in peace, amity and eternal goodwill. I will drink any amount of spiked Indus water to that.

The Indus person, Aitzaz Ahsan asserts, is a good soldier but a lousy administrator, an observation, let’s hope Mr Shahbaz Sharif remains unaware of, otherwise I can hear his
big bulldoze brigade beating bongo drums and moving towards Bank Square, Lahore, where the author keeps an office.

The Indus person, we are told, is a good soldier because he has “lived in the path of marauders who have come to burn his crops and villages.” Ahsan maintains that the “untiring Aryans”, the “savage Huns”, Alexander himself, the “unrelenting invaders” from Ghazni and Afghanistan, not to forget “the scourge of the earth” Taimur or the “ferocious” Nadir Shah, were given a taste of their own medicine, or their own steel, by the Indus people. This is somewhat amazing because the received wisdom on the valour of this region, especially Punjab, is that in the event of an invasion, the inhabitants were lined up ten deep on their side waving garlands, pointing towards Delhi and shouting as they bowed from the waist: “Light of the Universe, Most Exalted Majesty, the good stuff lies in that direction.”

Aitzaz also comes up with the theory that the people of the Indus believe that it is righteousness and not technical superiority which wins battles. Interesting. And where is righteousness to be found?

“Righteousness is with the faithful, even though they may lack discipline,
technology and scientifically more effective strategies” which is why despite a hundred years of the British, the Indus person “has not acquired a scientific attitude towards life.”

Does he have a role model? Yes. It is the “man on horseback, brandishing a sword and charging the enemy, single-handedly killing a hundred armed opponents.” Splendid, isn’t it! The mercenary and professional armies raised from this area by the British and those before them, are a matter of pride for the author. “The Indus person, when drilled, trained and subjected to discipline, can make the best military officer anywhere in the world … He has learnt the advantage, in peace and war, of obedience to superior officers. These were the men that Indus produced to help Britain rule over a global empire.” Umph!!!

Rule Britannia, we are on your side.

But if the Indus men are such good soldiers, why are they such lousy administrators? Aitzaz Ahsan’s answer: “Having been subjected to abject anarchy for centuries, the Indus person sees no need to abide by the rules himself.” Ha! but we had just been old that the Indus person is the best soldier in the world. How come he is such a disaster as an administrator? Or does the Indus person come in two varieties? The good soldier and the lousy administrator. Ahsan’s argument is that as long as the Indus person is in uniform, he is just fine, but once he is out of it, he instantly forgets what he has learnt. You only have to take one look at Gen Hamid Gul and Gen. Aslam Beg and exclaim that truer words were never spoken. Yes, that is also why soldiers have made such bad civilian administrators, adds the author. And since they are bad administrators, the “Indus elite” cannot abide by or have any respect for civic norms. One will need a cup of strong black coffee to digest this one.

Be that as it may, the fact is that it takes some doing to write a heavy book like The Indus Saga and the making of Pakistan. Aitzaz is a man of many gifts. His retentive memory, for example, is so phenomenal that had Zulfikar Ali Bhutto known that it was better than his, he would have sent him, instead of Iftikhar Tari, to Dalai Camp. He can recite from Faiz, Faraz and Jalib for hours without faltering. Even Ms Benazir Bhutto, who is quite without emotion in most matters, would sometimes not fail to be moved by Aitzaz Ahsan’s stirring recitation of verse she only half understood, being strictly “English medium” where it was perfectly in order to say. “Azan baj raha hai.”

Please also see:

There was no “partition”

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/for-britain-india-included-somalia-iraq-burma-etc/

Why we Created Pakistan?

http://moinansari.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/why-we-created-pakistan-the-pakistan-ideology/

Also see The Indus Valley Civilzation articles on this site. By Ishtiaq Ahmed 2/2/2008
The official position on the origin of Pakistan is something like this: Muslims are expected to lead their lives in accordance with comprehensive Islamic injunctions. For doing that, an Islamic polity is imperative. Hence Indian Muslims were bound to demand a separate state for themselves whenever an opportunity arose. The end of British colonialism provided such an opportunity and the Muslims whole-heartedly responded to the call for a separate Muslim state on the Indian subcontinent. Some versions of such theorising locate the origins of Pakistan in the arrival of the Arabs in the subcontinent in 711. Islam and Hinduism, it is argued, represent two diametrically opposite worldviews. Therefore partition was inevitable.

Another set of theories can be called ‘cultural-geographical theories’. We are told that six thousand years a distinct civilisation evolved around the Indus River and its various tributaries (roughly corresponding to the present territories of Pakistan) and remained separate for most of those six thousand years from the one centred on the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India. The sharp contrast between them being that the Indus Valley Civilisation evolved a liberal and egalitarian ethos deriving from the influence of various unorthodox creeds and movements which during the Muslim period were blended into the mystical forms of Sufi Islam, while the rest of India was organized into an hierarchical and rigid social system which found its ultimate perfection in the Hindu caste system. Hence, when the British withdrew from South Asia the Muslims of the Indus Valley Civilisation chose to separate from the rest of India. Such a theory it may be noted has no room for East Pakistan being part of Pakistan. (Editors note: ..but part of Bangistan as proposed by Chaudhry Rehmat Ali in his brochure “Now or Never”. There was Pakistan, Bangastina, Usmanistan and other Muslim areas in “Dinya”)

Another cluster of theories deriving from Marxism, look upon the movement for Pakistan as a democratic mass movement of the oppressed Muslim community against the dominant Hindu majority. Here, emphasis is given to the head start that Hindus and Sikhs enjoyed in taking to modern education in the schools established by the British. The Muslims lagged behind and consequently the non-Muslims captured the main sectors of the emerging capitalist economy. In particular the overwhelmingly Muslim agrarian classes including various categories of peasants were deeply indebted to the Hindu and Sikh money-lenders. An ideology of popular, egalitarian Islam attracted Muslims from all segments of society and therefore the establishment of Pakistan was the culmination of a protracted struggle to liberate Muslims from the yoke of Hindu-Sikh domination.

The most famous of these Marxist theories is the one put forth by the late Hamza Alavi. He asserted that the most ardent supporters of the idea of Pakistan were not the ulema but the Muslim salariat. The salariat comprised the sizable body of modern-educated Muslims who perceived that the creation of Pakistan would drastically improve their chances of finding employment with the state than if they were not to remain a part of a united India dominated by the more economically and educationally advanced Hindu majority. Thus, it is argued, Pakistan was not established out of confessional zeal but secular concerns of the salariat.

Alavi, however, never at any stage studied the actual dynamics of the Pakistan movement after the Lahore resolution of 1940. Therefore he was completely oblivious of the fact that the Muslim League made its breakthrough in the Punjab and NWFP only when it won over the Barelvi ulema and pirs. There is solid evidence to prove that Jinnah assured the ulema that the Shariah will apply to Muslims in Pakistan.

Theories based on high politics deriving from the role of individuals in the making of history, identify the role of Mohamed Ali Jinnah as pivotal and decisive to the creation of Pakistan. Without his towering leadership, it is asserted, the movement of Pakistan would not have succeeded. No only his lieutenants and followers are portrayed as political pygmies but even his adversaries with the exception of Gandhi, perhaps, are considered light-weights. Some theories suggest that Jinnah never actually wanted the division of India and sought at most a fair share of power for Muslims in a united India and it was the Congress leaders who spurned his overtures for an accommodation within a loose federation and instead precipitated the partition because they wanted to rule India through a powerful centre. Ayesha Jalal is the main proponent of this variant of the role of individuals in history.

Other theories identify the fear of the Muslim upper classes of domination by Hindus. It is asserted that upper class Muslim leaders were not willing to accept a junior role for themselves in united India. Muslims had ruled India for more than 600 years and they could not understand why under a democratic system they should be deprived of power and influence. The veteran Khalid bin Sayeed champions such a theory.

Some theories identify a British hand in the creation of Pakistan. It has been suggested that the British were keen to use Pakistan as a base for their geopolitical and geo-economic designs in South Asia. In this regard, in a meeting held on May 12 1947 in London the chiefs of staff of various branches of the British armed forces and in the presence of Field Marshal Montgomery and Lord Ismay, it was observed:

‘From the strategic point of view there were overwhelming arguments in favour of Western Pakistan remaining within the Commonwealth, namely, that we should obtain important strategic facilities, the port of Karachi, air bases and the support of the Moslem manpower in the future… A refusal of an application to this end would amount to ejecting loyal people from the British Commonwealth, and would probably lose us all chances of ever getting strategic facilities anywhere in India…. From a military point of view, such a result would be catastrophic’ (Mansergh, N and Moon, P (eds), The Transfer of Power 1942-47, vol. 10. pp. 791-2).

Whatever the explanation for the origins of Pakistan, it is imperative that it becomes a state in which the rule of law and social justice prevail. For the Pakistani nation, the challenge is to look forward and not backwards.

The writer is a professor of political science and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg

ORIGINS OF THE TNT IN THE SUBCONTINENT

Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkar announced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”

“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).

So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India — a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition.

When Nathuram Godse pumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him with Judas. The writing was on the wall. The divide was evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims.

The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu. Syed Alvi Teheran Times

Comments (3)

September 16, 2008

Why Pakistan was created?

Filed under: British Raj, Independence movement, Two Nation Theory — Moin Ansari @ 10:34 pm
Tags: History of Pakistan, Why Pakistan?

WHY WE CREATED PAKISTAN?

The Indus Valley Civilization now known as Paksitan

Pakistan existed 5000 years ago as the IVC

The Pakistan Ideology

by
Moin-Ansari
Original March 16th, 1996 and Updated August 16th, 2008

| NEW YORK | RUPEE NEWS | March 16th, 1996 | Moin Ansari | When there are problems in Pakistan many look at the government and think of the present administration in power as the state. While the head of every government boldly declares “Le etat c’est moi” (I am the state), all of us who are disenfranchised, suppressed, and repressed need to take a cold hard look at the government. We should understand the difference between he government and the state. The government could be evil but the state of Pakistan does not belong to the government, the state of Pakistan belongs to the people of Pakistan, it belongs to us. 5561st re-birthday! Congratualations to Indus Pakistanis

Neither the strife in FATA, nor the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, nor the externally sponsored hooliganism and killings in Swat that have become the hallmark of today’s news, nor the band of marauders and mercenaries that infiltrate our borders to create malaise and mayhem in our land, can detract us from remembering the anniversary of the day that we decided to create a land for the Muslims of the subcontinent—a land we later named Pakistan. Pakistan: Another Indian prophecy of doom. Here we go again. The first one came in 1947.

THE PAKISTANI RESILIENCE IN THE FACE OF THREATS: Mountbatten, Nehru, Indira, Kruschev, Johnson, Carter, Kissinger (Nixon), Gobachov, Clinton, Armitage (Bush), Karzia (Bush and Vajpayee/Sing) have all threatened Pakistan: The Pakistanis are used to it…so what else is new?!! Pakistan’s Nuclear Program should be seen in the backdrop of these threats.The capacity of Pakistan to sustain some fifteen major disarticulations in polity, power, and structure and still preserve a national identity is a phenomenon one is tempted to explain by recourse to the supernatural. Pakistan which has been pummelled by external events (three wars with India, secession of Bangladesh, 3.5 million Afghan refugees) and disrupted by internal fissures (4 periods of martial law totalling 27 years and ethnic violence in Sindh) to a degree which no other state established since 1945 has suffered. In this respect it stands as an exemplar of a nation whose adversities “common sense” might suggest make its viability impossible. Yet its continued existence defies the reality induced by such speculation. The enormity and persistence of these difficulties and the resilience of the nation in absorbing and somehow surviving them must be regarded with awe if not admiration.” RALPH BRAIBANTI

This salute is dedicated to the 1200 men and women who died defending our borders as well as the thousands who were innocent victims of aggression on our shores. In-spite of the murders, and in-spite of the bombs, life in Pakistan goes on, and the Crescent and the Star flutters high on our sky scrapers and pulsates proud in our hearts. Let this anniversary of our Lahore resolution be a lesson to our enemies, that we remember our dedication to our cause, and promise to keep the dream of our fathers of our nation, Jinnah, Liaqat-Ali Khan and Iqbal alive.

Trail of freedom from the bowels of hell in Bharat to freedom in Pakistan

We remember the 1 million lives lost in creating a country, and also rededicate ourselves to the fact that “Pakistan manzil nahin, Nishan e Manzil hai”. Thatmanzil was defined by Iqbal, Liaqat, Jinnah and many others who carry the banner in the land of the Crescent and Star. Despite some impediments we have not lost track of the “manzil“. Pakistan as it existed 5000 years ago

$\'India is no more a country than the Equator\'.Winston Churchill$
‘India is no more a country than the Equator’.Winston Churchill

The British Indian Empire included Iraq, Aden, Somalia, Burma, and more than 500 states of the Subcontinent

The British Empire spanning continents

The Muslim majority areas of the Subcontinent should have been part of Pakistan. Many Muslims wanted to stay and fight in the “Darul Harb” ’till it was changed to “Darul islam“. (notice islam with lower case “i” which depicts islam=peace). The Quaid’s vision was to separate based on demographics.

Patel and others cheated us out of a real separation.

The more then 500 independent princely states of the Subcontinent

The State of Hyderabad wanted to stay independent after 1948 but was run over by Patel

The Princely state of Bombay Presidency

The Princely state of Baroda

Before separation

After separation

THE PAKISTAN RESOLUTION OF 1940: The Lahore Resolution (later known as the Pakistan Resolution) The Lahore resolution moved by Fazlul Haq at the 27th Session of the All India Muslim League, at Lahore on March 23, 1940 stated:

“that geographically contagious units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial adjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are in a majority, as in the north-west and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.”

The All India Muslim League session of 1936

1938 RESOLUTION ASKED FOR SEPARATION:Even earlier in 1938 Sir Abdullah Haroon moved a resolution for establishing independent Muslim states in the north-west and eastern zones. The word states continued to be used in subsequent sessions of the All India Muslim League till about 1943. Originally the two zones were meant to be autonomous and sovereign and it was only when the British and the Hindus insisted that Punjab and Bengal were to be partitioned that Pakistan began to be talked about as one state.

What is the Two Nation Theory exactly? The moniker “‘two’ ‘nation’ ‘theory’” is a misnomer. The theory of nationalities states that “India does not have a homogeneous population”. There are many racial, ethnic and linguistic groups in India. India is not a national state, India is not a country, but a sub-continent composed of “nationalities”. The two nation theory clearly states that that there are several nationalities in the subcontinent, and the Hindus and the Muslims are the largest of the two nations. Hindus and Muslims are different therefore Muslim majority areas must exist separately. Chaudry Rehmat Ali’s “Pakistan proposal asked for SEVERAL MUSLIM STATES in the subcontinent.”

In this document a map of India has also been published showing India split into different states, named as Pakistan, Guruistan, Usmanistan, Bangsamispan, Hindoostan comprising Rajistan, Kathiwar, Maharashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia. This pamphlet was reproduced in 1934 (Ref: The Great Divide by H. V. Hodson page 81). Karakal Pakistan’ existed as autonomous region of USSR.

He claimed that the destiny of whole Millat in the continent of “Dinia” (changed name of India) and its dependencies lies in the integration of Muslims into 10 countries: Pakistan, Bangistan, Usmanistan, Siddiqistan, Faruqistan, Haideristan, Muistan, Maplistan, Saristan, Nasarastan and than to be coordinated into Pak. Common Wealth of Nations.

Hanoodia:243 principalities or Rajwaras

Hindoostan: Rajistan, Kathiwar, Mahrashtra, Rajistan and Dravidia

Saristan

Nasarastan

Haideristan

Siddiqistan

“Pakistan” (P=Punjab, A=Afghania, K=Kashmir, I=Islam, TAN=Baluchistan) in the Northwest including Kashmir, Delhi and Agra: “

Bangistan” in Bengal:

“Osmanistan” in Hyderabad; “Siddiquistan” in Bundelhand and Malwa; “

Faruqistan” in Bihar and Orissa: “

Haideristan” in UP: “

Muinistan” in Rajasthan: “

Maplistan” in Kerala:

“Safiistan” in “Western Ceylon” and “Nasaristan” in “Eastern Ceylon”, etc.

The map was published by Rahmat Ali in 1934 and came to be widely circulated in his pamphlet called “Now or Never” among the Muslims of the Subcontinent.

Rahmat Ali was disgusted at the bias of the British and referred the “British-Banya alliance” presumably in He even declined to refer to an “India” as having ever existed at all and instead called the subcontinent “Dinia”, and the oceans and the seas around India as the “Pakian Sea”, the “Osmanian Sea” etc. He urged the Dalits, Sikhs, Buddhists to rise up against the Hindus. In in “Sikhistan” he asked them to be independent. He urged all of the supressed peoples to rise up against supression.

This is what we asked for.

We were cheated out of this.

ANALYSIS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY:
The two nation theory enunciates that the subcontinent is made of several nationalities, the Hindus and the Muslims being the largest of the two. India is as big as Western Europe and contains many many racial, religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. The Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations, in terms of diet, attitude, social behavior, economic tendencies, social interaction, behaviors, and attitude.

According to many Pakistanis “The two nation theory did not solve all the problems of the subcontinent. However it did save 200 million Muslims (those emancipated in Pakistan and Bangladesh) from social economic and political servitude. The servitude is proven by the decadent condition of Indian Muslims in a “secular” Indian state. Perhaps it sacrifices 150 million Indian Muslims. But the alternative was 450 million Muslims in servitude.” “Secularism” in “India” means “Hinduism Light.“

Nationhood is defined as the tendency of a nation to exist. No two nations have the same reason to exist. USA and Canada exist separately, though you may think that both nations have English speaking population, with similar accents, similar religions, similar culture, similar economic structures, and similar racial and ethnic backgrounds. Do you hear America question the validity of Canada to exist. I believe that the USA has the power to take over Canada, if it really wanted to. BUT the USA recognizes the right of the Canadians to exist separately.

THE TWO NATION THEORY & THREE STATES: The Two Nation theory cannot be debunked because there are more then one Muslim country in the subcontinent. The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh). The Chinese nation lives in several states (Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia). Similarly the Muslim nation (transcending all racial, ethnic, caste and linguistic boundaries) can live in several states. There are several Arab Muslim countries too. The country of Pakistan as a unified Muslim country in the subcontinent was actually asked for the Bengali nationalists. Jinnah acquiesced.

The “Nationalistic” Indian attitude towards the TNT: Many modern Indians have a what Pakistanis consider a “strange” attitude. Pakistan should not exist, because it would be better for Indian Muslims, better for Indian Hindus, better for Pakistanis. Pakistanis ask “How do they know it would be better for us?” And who are they to judge our feelings, and tell us what is better for our nation?” If a nation is defined “as a tendency of a people to seek a country”then the Muslims of the Subcontinent are a nation. They point out to one insignificant point or the other in Pakistan to devalue the “raisan d’etre” of Pakistani nationhood. This attitude spell perpetual warfare.

PAKISTANI NATIONHOOD: Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that “India was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the “Indian” map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatya’s era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that “Akhand Bharat” was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.”

Plutarch expressed this sentiment well some centuries ago: “A conqueror is always a lover of peace. He would like to make his entry into your cities unopposed.” Does India talk peace in the Plutarchian sense?

SUMMARY AND ABSTRACT ON SOUTH ASIAN SCHISMS
This article presents the arguments of political stratification and nation forming that were in the air in the Forties. The arguments against the Subcontinental nationhood are discussed at length. The arguments for a Pakistani nation are analyzed in depth. Arguments from both sides are presented and refuted.

The history of the creation of India and Pakistan is not always in teleological progression. We have lost a lot of history by tracing our history by traveling through chronological diaries and self aggrandizing biographies. Neither Pakistani nor Indian history books have done an adequate job of tracing our roots. Neither explain “partition” properly.

The Pakistani text books ignore Hindu contributions to our common struggle against colonialism, and seem ashamed of the common lineage with Hindus—(Indus Valley, Buddhism), Pakistani historical narratives underplay the role of the nationalist Indian Muslim leadership, Jauhar, Azad and Suhrawardi, and over emphasize the importance of the RSS and Jan Sangh. Pakistani textbooks ignore the Sufi contributions to our struggle of independence and restrict discussion of Sufiism to Shah Waliullah and a few others.

The Indian textbooks fail to see the Pakistan movement as a provincial and minority rebellion against the Nehruite Marxist-Leninist Federalism that was the hall mark of the INC. The Indian textbooks fail to mention the three wings of Congress, the Nehruite secular wing led by Nehru, the fundamentalist and communal wing led by Rai, the religious wing led by Gandhi, and the extreme nationalist wing led by Patel. The Bharat text books fail to recognize that fact that Gandhi was and was seen as a religious leader by the minorities and by a large section of the Hindu populace. The Indian text books over glorify many Hindu periods, fail to mention the Hindu Buddhist wars, diminish Brahamanism and Brahamanic cruelties towards non-Brahmans, relegate the Mughal era to the greatness of Akbar, ignore the Hindu communal organizations, demonize Muslim leaders who differed with Gandhi, brand secular and moderate Muslim leadership of the Muslim League as communal leaders, overlook the frailties of the INC leadership that led to the Hindu-Muslim schism, and fail to recognize the radical non-secular part of the Congress that scared the minorities.

The Indian textbooks neglect to mention the accomplishments of the Muslim League Muslim leadership that tried to safeguard the interests of the Indian Muslim minorities by fighting for separate electorates for the Muslims, and tried to guarantee the rights of the minorities through the Cabinet Mission Plan and by demanding one third of the representation in parliament. This ingenious plan would have guaranteed a fair and equitable settlement. However vested interests in the INC would not allow this.

The article has some in-bred biases towards the Pakistani point of view. No apologies are given for this slant. The purpose of the article is not convince people, simply to present facts and analysis.

THE FORTIES: THE THEORIES IN AIR
Freedom is in the air. The Union Jack is to come down. How do wedeal with independence? Are we mature enough to behave as civilized nations? The years preceding our independence was an intense time. The Freedom Movement created many leaders and many movements. Neither the Muslims nor the Hindus nor the Sikhs were monolithic groups. Each political group had many leaders. Many times the leadership seemed to head in different directions. The Harrow-Eaton Oxbridge led INC under the leadership of Motilal Nehru was a very different Congress. The INC led by his son Jawaharlal Nehru was a very different INC.

The INC had several factions that split and made up. Similarly the Muslim Movement had factions and grouping in it. Disgruntled elements in each of the major parties went and formed their own political parties and contested the elections. Each group had sub-groupings and subdivisions. There were more than 550 states in the Subcontinent. The Forties gave us the opportunity to forge a country in the Subcontinent or create many nations. As a people we failed to remain at peace. As countries we failed to keep the peace. As nations we failed to usher in an era of prosperity into the Subcontinent. Today let history teach us some lessons.

ONT VS. TNT:
The Two Nation Theory is in direct contradiction of the One Nation Theory. There were proponents of the One Nation Theory in the Indian National Congress and many Muslims believed in the One Nation Theory. Similarly there were many Congressional Leaders that believed in the Two Nation Theory. There were many variations of the TNT and there were many variations of the ONT . On the one hand the TNT espoused many countries in the Subcontinent, on the other is espoused two countries.

Rama Rajha vs Darul Islam:
The ONT had many variations too. There were fundamentalist minority of Muslims who also supported the ONT and had declared India as “Darul Harb” (Area of war) with a view to convert it to “Darul Islam” (Area of peace). The religious right espoused a religious Brahman theocracy based on the dharma. “Ram Rajha” were proposed with forced eviction and/or conversion of all Non-Hindus by some of the fundamentalist parties on the right.

United States of India vs. Mahabharta vs India and Pakistan
There were the secular versions of the ONT and there were many that propagated a United States of India. The secular and moderate wings of the Congress and the Muslims won the day, and the fundamentalist on both sides lost the elections.

POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER: India had 400 million people. The Muslims were a minority, and because of colonialism had lost the political power in the Subcontinent. The British had taken actions to snatch the control from the Muslims at all echelons of power. The Muslims were demoralized, penury-stricken and were unable to compete with the the more affluent and more educated Hindus. Separate electorates allowed them to elect their own representatives, but the fear of “majoratarianism” scared the minority. Indian “democracy” still does not have any safeguards to prevent “majoratarianism” from dictating to the minority. Requests for one third seats in parliament were not acceptable to the Indian National Congress, and though on many occasions agreements were reached, pressures within the Congress did not allow the agreements to materialize.

The Cabinet Mission Planwas the closest the INC came to an agreement with the Muslim League. It was under these circumstances that they marched for freedom. The following narrative helps us remember the historical chronology and the ideological battles that were waged then and are being waged now over the internet.

The supporters of the TNT won the elections and won the arguments, and the believers of the ONT lost the elections. The INC and the Jamat e Islami were rejected by the Muslims. The TNT became fact and the ONT remains a fascination by many. These pages will distinguish the origins of the ONT and the TNT.

POST INDEPENDENCE PRESSURES VALIDATE THE TNT: Post-independence chronologies have shown us that religious pressures in both India and Pakistan have forced the moderate parties to take religious decisions. Today in India moderate Pakistani parties like the Muslims League characterized as communal. Today in Pakistan and moderate parties like the Congress are characterized as religious parties.

THE 360 VIEW: STATES FORMED ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION
Pakistan of course is not the only sate formed on the basis of religion.

Throughout history there have been states formed on the basis of religion. The Holy Roman Empire, The Turkish Ottoman Empire, Lebanon, Israel, the Federated/ Confederated Republic of Cypriot Turks, and more recently Bosnia have all been formed on the basis of religion. Many of these states survived for centuries and indeed thrived. The basis of many “states” in the Indian Republic is indeed based on religion (though this is usually disguised). Haryana is one prime example of a state that was separated from the Punjab on the basis of religion. Sindh, was divided on the basis of religion with the cognizance and approval of the Indian National Congress.

BANGLADESH AS THIRD COUNTRY IN THE TWO NATIONS The creation of Bangladesh is the fulfilled prophecy of the Lahore Resolution. The TNT is not affected by the creation of Bangladesh. Pakistanis claim that “The Two Nation theory cannot be debunked because there are more then one Muslim country in the subcontinent.” The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (India, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh). The Chinese nation lives in several states (Taiwan, China, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia). Similarly the Muslim nation (transcending all racial, ethnic, caste and linguistic boundaries) can live in several states. There are several Arab Muslim countries too.

The country of Pakistan as a unified Muslim country in the subcontinent was actually asked for the Bengali nationalists. Jinnah acquiesced Bangladesh faces the same religious pressures as Pakistan with regard to religion. The separation from Pakistan was cognizance of a geo-political reality and the development of minority and regional rights, the same rights that Jinnah tired to guarantee in his famous Fourteen Points. The TNT and Jinnah sought a weak center and strong provincial rights. Neither India which bases it provinces and states on linguistics AND RELIGION, nor Pakistan, nor Bangladesh nor Sri Lanka have been able to resolve the question of religious and ethnic minorities. The creation of Banglasdesh, the de facto division of Sri Lanka and the “special status” accorded to Kashmiris within India are indeed recognition of the TNT in its various forms. Jamaat wants BD to be declared an Islamic state :

01 May 1997, Thursday, 23
Zilhaj 141720 DHAKA, April 30: Bangladesh’s Jamaat-i-Islam party on Wednesday renewed its demand for the country to be declared an Islamic state.20 “The constitution must recognize the sovereignty of God through declaring the country an Islamic Republic,” Jamaat’s secretary general Matiur Rahman Nizami told reporters .20 Nizami said the 10-month-old government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed had failed to play a “positive role” in political and socio-economic areas and said law and order had severely deteriorated over the past few months.20 “We think everybody is worried at the present situation of the country,”he said and announced a two-month campaign beginning on Thursday to drum up support for Jamaat’s demands for an Islamic state. Jamaat backed Awami League during its campaign against the BNP government of former prime minister Khaleda Zia, who resigned in May last year.97AFP20

GANDHI ON CREATION OF PAKISTAN
In an interesting book called “Birds of a feather flock together” by Anwar Shaikh the author says the following:

“The fact that the Indians did not have to fight the British for freedom, absolves them of the usually leveled charge of divide and rule. The British ruled several communities and they were politically and morally obliged to give a fair healing to all of them. It was the attitudes of mutual hatred, which contributed to the communal divisions, but came to be ascribed to the British. This is the truth that Gandhi described when he said:

….but if both of us – Hindus and Muslims – cannot agree on anything else the Viceroy is left with no choice .

It was not the British, who divided India: it is the Congress and the League that had agreed to partition as the solution and Mountbatten was not to blame”.Gandhi assured .

THE ONT PROPONENTS: THE NATIONALISTIC INDIAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE TNT:
Many modern Indians have a what Pakistanis consider a “strange” attitude. Pakistan should not exist, because it would be better for Indian Muslims, better for Indian Hindus, better for Pakistanis. Pakistanis retort 93How do they know it would be better for us? And who are they to judge our feelings, and tell us what is better for our nation? If a nation is defined as a tendency of a people to seek a country then the Muslims of the Subcontinent are a nation. Pakistanis justify the existence of the country by explaining that 93India was never ONE NATION. India is as big as Western Europe and has more nationalities than Europe. The subcontinent has always been a conglomeration of states and nationalities. If one looks at the ‘Indian’ map during the Mughal era, or during Vikramadatya’s era, one will see dozens, sometimes hundreds of STATES. Pakistanis believe that “Akhand Bharat” was a figment of the imagination of Gandhi and the Jan Sangh. Just because the British called it India, does not mean that it was one nation ever or will be one nation ever.

“THE PAKISTAN IDEOLOGY” EXPLAINS “WHY PAKISTAN?: For those who TRULY want to understand Pakistanis, let us go over the excerpts from: Ideology of Pakistan by Prof. Saeeduddin Ahmad Dar

The Muslims of South Asia are a nation in the modern sense of the word; The basis of their nationhood is neither territorial, nor racial, nor linguistic nor ethnic; They are a nation because they profess the same faith Islam; They are entitled to self-determination. The areas where they (Muslims) are in dominant majority should be constituted into sovereign states/state; Wherein they should be enabled to order their lives in individual and collective spheres in accord with the teachings and requirements of Islam asset out in Holy Quran and Sunna; and The state should endeavour to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The Ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim Community of South Asia to maintain its individuality by resisting all attempts to absorb it by the Hindu society. They believe that Islam is incompatible with Hinduism. Historical experience has shown that Islam and Hinduism have two different social orders and given birth to two distinct cultures and that there is no meeting point between the two.

TNT: WHY PAKISTAN
Let us give you a skeleton argument of WHY Pakistan was needed. The creation of Pakistan can be explained in the following sentences:

a) The Lahore Resolution proposed 2 Muslim states in the subcontinent and India in the middle in accordance with the Two Nation Theory. Pakistanis believe that TNT is alive, EVEN After 1971 or else BD would have folded into India. Many nations live in more than ONE country. The Arabs (Libya and Egypt etc.) live in more than one country. The Hindu nation lives in more than one country (Nepal, Bhutan) etc., etc. Etc. The creation of Bangladesh does not negate the Nationalities Theory of the Subcontinent.

b) In 1947 Hindus in India controlled almost all parts of life in the Subcontinent. To emancipate the Muslims a SEPARATE quarantine (Green house where the economically depressed Muslims could be nurtured) area had to be created to allow MORE opportunity to the Muslims.

c)The Muslim League wanted a Muslim majority land because they feared that the Hindus would totally subjugate their Islamic entity. Most Pakistanis feel that this has actually happened to the 100 million Muslims who were left in India today.

d) The Muslim League did not want/plan a population transfer. However this did happen. Both sides blame each other. The population transfer took place.

e) If the population transfer had not taken place (and Pakistan still had a 30% Hindu population), would Muslims have achieved something in Pakistan? Would Muslims have gotten a free ride in business with Hindus dominating the businesses in Pakistan? The answer to these questions are not simple. If the Hindu majority towns in Pakistani Sind are any indication, there would have been no problem.

f) In 1945 the Congress accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan. So did the Muslim League. Then the Congress led by Jawaharlal Nehru made a volte face and rejected it. So then did the Muslim League. It was clear that Nehru did not want to risk the chance of the leadership of India going out of his hands. Nehru was as much responsible for Pakistan as Jinnah. If Pakistan had been created a multi-cultural multi-communal entity, with the entire Punjab and the entire Bengal (as envisaged by Quaid-e-Azam) then we would have a very very different Subcontinent. We got what Quad-e-Azam called a 93moth-eaten-Pakistan94 (it was this moth-eaten Pakistan or nothing). It was very difficult for this moth eaten Pakistan to survive (without any infra-structure, industries etc.). If a multi-cultural, multi-communal Pakistan had been allowed to evolve perhaps we would NOT have had three wars!

THE ORIGINS OF THE TWO NATION THEORY AND THE TRANSITION TO THE NATIONALITIES FACT
What started as the Nationalities theory was labeled “The two nation theory” and ended up as the SEVERAL NATIONALITIES FACT. The TNT has been around for centuries. Quaid-e-Azam,Mohammad Ali Jinnah on one occasion said that the struggle for Pakistan started when the first Muslim set foot on the shores of Sindh. This is what Al Beruni in his treatise Kitab-Ul-Hind about the differences he observed between the two communities: “The Hindus entirely differ from the Muslims in every respect. One might think that they had intentionally changed them into the opposite, for our customs do not resemble theirs”.

Al Beruni enumerates the following reasons for the complete and entire isolation of the Muslims as a community from the Hindus: “All their (Hindu) fanaticism is directed against those who do not belong to them. They (Hindus) call them (Muslims and others) impure, and forbid having any connection with them, be it inter-marriage, or by any other kind of relationship, or by sitting, eating, and drinking with them, because thereby they think why would be polluted”. In early eleventh century Al-Biruni observed:

“In all matters and usages they (Hindus) differ from us (Muslims).

He wrote:

“They are totally differ from us in religion, as we believe in nothing in which they believe and vice versa.”

According to Beruni:

“the Hindus considered the Muslim “Malachha” i.e. impure and for bid having any connection with them, be it intermarriage or any bond of relations hip, or by sitting, eating and drinking with them, because thereby, they think they be polluted.

Expressing his views on Hindu-Muslim relations in the twentieth century Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah observed:

“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literature. They neither intermarry, nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilizations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different.”

TNT: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HINDUS AND MUSLIMS
Here is a Pakistani patriot arguing about the differences between the two nations:

“Dress codes between Hindus and Non-Hindus are apparent in any gathering, specially among women. Standards of modesty for women are very very different. We speak Urdu, you cleansed Urdu of all Persian and Arabic words and speak Hindi. Your literature consists of Tagore and others, ours of the later stages of Iqbal. Our heroes are your enemies (Auranzeb and Mahmud of Gazni). Our scoundrels are your heroes (Shivajee). Our architecture is Moghal in nature- symmetrical with domes and minars. Yours is stupa shaped and temple-like. Our temples are decorated with writings, yours are pictographic representations abhorrent to Muslims. Our civilization is traced from the deserts of Arabia, the sands of Persia and the fertile valley of the Indus.

Yours is traced from the depths of Somnath, and the war plains of the Ganges. Our names are different than yours. Our value systems are based on Judeo-Christian monothieism and the ten commandments. Yours are based on a conglomerations of books that originated in Hindu mythology. Your laws are based on the Hindu Rashtra (or secularism), ours on the ten commandments . We eat meat and relish beef. For you Sex is religious and requires display and celebration, for us sex is private and a duty for procreation. You are vegetarian and abhor beef . On religious holidays we pray and scrifice animals, you celebrate fire. We pray five times a day and want the aazaan to monitor our day, you go to temples every week. We pray towards Mecca, you go to pilgrimage to the Ganges. We bury our dead, you cremate them. We are all equal, you have a caste system. We share our foods, you cannot share between castes. We revere the widows, you used to burn them.We are required to slap back, you believe in ahmisa. We believe in heaven and hell, you believe in re-incarnation.”

“Remember that ….we shall fight ,and we shall fight for 1,000 years as we have fought for 1,000 years in the past….we can continue ! ” (ZAB at the United Nations )

HINDU ORIGINS OF THE TNT:The ” Two Nation Theory” was originally formed around the latter part of the Nineteenth century. Ironically the TNT originated as a result of the parochial writings of major Hindu leaders like Lal Lajpat Rai who were proclaiming that Hindus and Muslims were separate nations and the Muslims should be expunged from the land of the Hindus. When the Muslims saw that the Hindus were targeting them, the Muslims decided to act.

Contrary to the common belief that Jinnah originated the two-nation theory, actually it was Savarkar who propounded the theory years before the Muslim League embraced the idea. Savarkar had commanded all the Muslims to leave ‘Bharat’ to pave the way for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. When Jinnah introduced his two-nation theory, Savarkar announced, “I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory… It is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”

“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).

So the hate campaign against Muslims was well in place even before the partition of erstwhile British India. This and many other significant factors forced Jinnah to demand a separate nation for Muslims as he believed that Muslims would not be safe in India — a prophetic declaration indeed! There is no denying the fact that Jinnah was secular to the marrow and would never have wished to cut ties with India, but circumstances compelled him to do so. However, he had not harbored grudges against India or its leaders. He had kept his house on Malabar Hill, thinking he could weekend there, while running his country from Karachi on weekdays, but destiny had something else in store for the estranged neighbors of the Asia Partition.

When Nathuram Godse pumped three bullets into Gandhi, a section of the Hindu community compared him with Judas. The writing was on the wall. The divide was evident. In some areas people mourned the death of Gandhi, and in other areas they distributed sweets, held celebrations, and demanded the release of Godse. Gandhi’s crime was that he had demanded security for Muslims. Syed Alvi Teheran Times August 17th, 2008

The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu.

The actual chronology was not so simple. Most Leaguers realized the fact that initial the Congress had been a moderate and liberal party, but could the fate of the Muslims be trusted on the Nehru dynasty. Could other religious movements not overtake the INC secular ideology. Would majoritarianism not destroy the Muslim ethnicity? The result of their action was Pakistan. The historical basis of the TNT can be traced back to Shivajee. The TNT was proposed by Lala Rai. The TNT was formally articulated from the Muslim side by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, then announced by the president of the Muslim Leagues Mohammad Iqbal in 1930. It was preached by Quaid-e-Azam and adopted by the entire Muslim League. The TNT demanded the end of the artificial state called “India” that had been forced upon the people of the subcontinent by the British.

BRITISH ORIGINS OF THE TNT: The division of Sub-Continent into different Federating Units has an old history. It was a British MP, John Bright, who immediately after mutiny in 1857 suggested that the Empire be broken up into several smaller states (Ref: Liberty or Death by Patiriek French P. 88) with complete autonomy, ultimately becoming independent states.

MUSLIM ORIGINS OF THE TNT: Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan and other reacted. John Bright again in 1877 clearly said ‘that after British withdrawal India will have five or six great independent sovereign states like those of Europe (Ref: Rahmat Ali by K. K. Aziz P.51 1987 Ed.).

The TNT wanted the subcontinent to be returned to its pre-British status that existed through the centuries, the status that had allowed many states to exist in the subcontinent. India had more than five hundred independent states even during the British colonial era. The Lahore Resolution demanded the partition of the subcontinent (and the creation of TWO Muslim states in the subcontinent) on the basis of the TNT in 1940. The TNT was proven in 1947 when India was “partitioned” and “India” returned to its natural and normal state, which consisted on many nation states. In 1947 the TNT became the The Nationalities Law.

BECAUSE OF THE FAULTY BOUNDARY COMMISSION MUSLIM LANDS WERE TRUNCATED AND MUSLIMS WERE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

“The greatest migration in history was the exchange of 11.5 million people between India and Pakistan in 1947 accompanied by the massacre of another half a million. The migration of 3.5 million Afghan refugees into Pakistan from 1979 to 1987 was almost as disruptive. The separation of Bangladesh was, until the dismemberment of the Soviet empire in 1991, the only successful secession of the post World War II era. Three wars with India over what is essentially a boundary dispute bloodied with ethnic cleansing in Kashmir, and now continued turbulence and terrorism based in part on drug distribution and in part on the presumption of the development of nuclear weapons capacity. Ralph Braiabnti

PAKISTANI STABILITY:

“The critical role of Pakistan as a factor in international stability and global politics can only be appreciated when it is placed in the context of a global resurgence of Islamic identity. The pre-eminent characteristic of Pakistan is its Muslim episteme. When established in 1947 in the name of Islam it was the most populous Muslim nation in the world. While the secession of Bangladesh in 1971 reduced it to second place after Indonesia, it remains one of the most conspicuously fervent of the fifty-four member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that declare themselves constitutively Islamic. The invocation of Islam as its raison d’etre places Pakistan as one of the few nations, along with the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia founded explicitly on religious doctrine rather than by historical accident or colonial invention. A realistic assessment of its role in the world requires a survey of its ideological universe – Ummah – the global commonwealth of Muslims.Ralph Braibanti.

THREATS TO “INDIA”

“Yet it is the India of Gandhi which remains in the American imagination and distorts at every angle our impressions of India and hence our view of Pakistan. Modern India unambiguously regards itself as the dominant power in the region. It has waged war with China, three wars with Pakistan, occupied the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, annexed the Portuguese enclave of Goa, seized the princely Muslim state of Junagadh, annexed the Himalayan state of Sikkim, exerts political control over Nepal and Bhutan, intervened militarily in Pakistan’s civil war which established Bangladesh, intervenes in the Tamil-Sinhalese violence in Sri Lanka, continues to conflict with Pakistan over the boundary of the Siachen glacier and is adamant in its refusal to implement a series of United Nations resolutions starting in 1948 calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. In view of these well-defined instances of hegemonic impulse there can be little wonder about Pakistan’s concern that its security technology should match India’s. In his autobiography, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, analyzed the strategy of the United States to bring India and Pakistan together as a buffer against China. He deftly characterized the Pakistani view of India, “The idea of becoming subservient to India is abhorrent and that of cooperation with India, with the object of promoting tension with China, equally repugnant.”

THREATS TO PAKISTAN ARE ALWAYS EXAGGERATED:

“The capacity of Pakistan to sustain some fifteen major disarticulations in polity, power, and structure and still preserve a national identity is a phenomenon one is tempted to explain by recourse to the supernatural Pakistan which has been pummelled by external events (three wars with India, secession of Bangladesh, 3.5 million Afghan refugees) and disrupted by internal fissures (4 periods of martial law totalling 27 years and ethnic violence in Sindh) to a degree which no other state established since 1945 has suffered. In this respect it stands as an exemplar of a nation whose adversities “common sense” might suggest make its viability impossible. Yet its continued existence defies the reality induced by such speculation. The enormity and persistence of these difficulties and the resilience of the nation in absorbing and somehow surviving them must be regarded with awe if not admiration.”

PAKISTAN MANZIL NAHIN NISHAN E MANZIL HAI: Alama Iqbal showed us the “manzil”. We don’t want a caliphate nor a religious theocracy; Not a means to wage war or expansion; Not through conquest or capturing capitals; not to threaten anyone, but just so that we can all live together in peace.

“Unlike any other Muslim nation, Pakistan has a complicated web of relationships with the entire world of Islam (Ummah). It is a mistaken notion to think of Pakistan exclusively in the context of South Asia or the South Asian subcontinent. Having fragmented from that subcontinent with no exclusionary topographical boundaries separating it from the Indian states of Punjab and Rajasthan and the disputed area of Kashmir, that assumption is easy to make. But it is erroneous. The topographical barriers separating Pakistan from its western and northern neighbours – Afghanistan, Iran and China – are much more formidable, but the cultural affinities are greater still. Afghan-Pushtu culture oversteps the Durand Line. Baluch-Brahui tribal culture is found in the Baluchistan of Pakistan and in the Baluchistan of Iran.

These links with its western neighbours existed long before pre-partition India. Indeed all the boundaries in the area, such as the Durand Line, the Radcliffe Boundary and the McMahon Line were drawn to satisfy colonial interests; not to delineate ethnic/linguistic/cultural identities. The relationship with Afghanistan, always fraught with difficulties, has been woven into a denser web in consequence of Pakistan’s pivotal role in the Soviet-Afghan War. The links with Turkey and Central Asia have historical roots. The Muslims of the subcontinent absorbed, as Ishtiaq Husain Qureshi has so poignantly written, “layers of immigrants from Arabia, Iran, Central Asia and the Afghan mountains; the greatest impact was made by the Central Asians, because they seem to have been the most numerous and also because the ruling dynasties were overwhelmingly Turkish.” Qureshi states that the painting of such artists as Chugtai and poets such as Hali, Iqbal and Ghalib all have an Iranian flavour. He quotes the “great thinker” Shah Waliu’llah who suggests that the Muslims of India were travellers in a strange land dreaming of the roses, nightingales, cypress forests and running springs of Iran and Central Asia. This romanticized view of the wellsprings of Pakistani culture was reinforced by the separation of Bangladesh in 1971 and the emergence of strengthened bonds with the Islamic states to the West.

“Tu shaaheen hai, basaira kar pharaon kee chatanon pur”

..”Jhapatna palatna, palat kar jhapatna;

Lahu garm rakhne ka hai ik bahana”…..Alama Iqbal

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcmQHaoLrW0&feature=related)

Pakistan has a great future.

DIL ZINDA-O-BEDAAR AGAR HO TO BA-TADREEJ

BANDE KO ATA KARTA HAI CHASHME-NIGRAA(N) AUR

ALFAZ-O-MAANI MEIN TAFAWAT NAHI LEKIN

MULLAH KI AZAA(N) AUR, MUJAHID KI AZAA(N) AUR

PARWAAZ HAI DONO KI ISI EK FIZAA MEIN

KARGAZ KA JAHA(N) AUR HAI, SHAHEEN KA JAHA AUR

1. If your heart is alive and alert then gradually Allah gives his banda different way to look at things.

2. Both Mulla and Mujahid say Allah-O-Akbar, Although words and meaning are same, but there is a difference in purpose

3. Although both Vulture and Falcon fly in the same sky, both have different way of living, vulture flies low and lives on dead bodies, where as falcon flies high and lives on preys.

“The economic and political facet of this cultural affinity takes form in the Economic Cooperation Organization established in 1993 by ten contiguous states – Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and the six Central Asian Islamic Republics. It supersedes the entity known as Regional Cooperation Development (RCD) formed in 1964 by Turkey, Iran and Pakistan which was never very effective. This new organization (ECO) holds greater promise than the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation of 1983 (SAARC). The latter has been crippled by the relatively overwhelming size of India and fear that India’s conduct defines a hegemonic propensity of ultimate danger to Pakistan. The relative success of the Economic Cooperation Organization and the failure of SAARC are institutional reflections of the tighter linkage of Pakistan with Central Asia than with the subcontinent. The connections with the Arabian Peninsula are also significant. Changing the name of the industrial city of Lyallpur to Faisalabad after Saudi Arabia’s late monarch, Saudi Arabia’s financing the International Islamic University in Islamabad and the King Faisal Mosque, one of the largest in the world, are but a few symbols of the Arabian connections. The training of large numbers of Mujahideen (freedom fighters for religion) in Pakistan to fight in the Afghan-Soviet war, and the participation in that war of Saudi Arabian fighters has had a curious aftermath. Many of these warriors, left without a cause, are now in Bosnia along with Iranian mercenaries. Some are said to be in an underground resistance movement against the Saudi regime. If this is so, it thrusts Pakistan ever more deeply into the maelstrom of international Muslim political activities.” Ralph Baiganti

Step one: Current day Pakistan

Step two: Take control of Pashtun areas

Step 3: Confederation of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This is Central Asia

Step 4: Work with the Muslim world

Step 5: Grow the Muslim world

STRATEGIC POSITION OF PAKISTAN:

“The critical geopolitical position of Pakistan recalls the views of Sir Halford J. Mackinder, Professor Karl Hausholer and Admiral Alfred Thomas Mahan. It was Mackinder. writing in 1904 who first used the expression “geographical pivots of history. He advanced the idea of the “heartland” i.e. that whoever controls a central strategic or pivotal area, controls the surrounding, area, the range of control expanding in concentric circles. These ideas profoundly influenced Karl Haushofer, an army major general then professor of geography at Munich University. Haushofer was introduced to Adolf Hitler by Rudolf Hess. Haushofer’s theories influenced Hitler but eventually Hitler ignored his advice and sent him to a concentration camp. Haushofer’s son, Albrecht, an art historian who had also written on geopolitics, was imprisoned participation in a conspiracy to overthrow Hitler and was executed by a firing squad. Shortly thereafter, his father committed suicide. Admiral Mahan advanced the same notion in terms of seapower – whoever controls the sea has influence if not control over adjacent landmasses.

The precipitous decline in the respectability of geopolitics during and after the Second World War was due in part to the repugnance toward anything associated with Nazi doctrine or behaviour. Haushofer’s early influence on Hitler was widely regarded as the ideological paradigm for Hitler’s grand design of conquest. The fact that Haushofer was banished for advising against the German invasion of the Soviet Union did not lift the stigma. Later, nuclear warfare with the possibility of long-range destruction seemed to minimize the need for actual control of areas of land or sea. The geopolitical explanation of global strategy can be carried too far. The Mackinder-Haushofer paradigm was extremist in the sense that it did not take other factors such as climate and human behaviour into account. Ellsworth Huntington, a pioneer in analyzing geographical influences on human development, labels the Mackinder-Haushofer theories “fallacious”.

The blemish of their association with Nazi policy is evident in Huntington’s criticism. Writing during the height of Hitler’s power, he groups the Mackinder-Haushofer paradigm with the racist theories of Houston S. Chamberlain and Count Joseph A. deGobineau. In recent years there has been a marginal renewal of interest in the influence of geography on politics. The awareness of the criticality of “chokepoints” or “flashpoints” has contributed to this new interest. It is neither prudent nor accurate to label this development as geopolitics. The simple term “political geography” as developed by Isaiah Bowman as early as 1921 is a more useful and accurate designation. In the past decade a growing number of analysts of international politics such as Paul Kennedy, Ewan Anderson, William Pfaff, Saul Cohen, Jack Child have turned to classical geography for some explanation of contemporary issues. The rising incidence of low intensity non-nuclear conflicts in which control of pivotal areas of land and sea is critical also contributes to a reassessment of geography. Pakistan fits perfectly into a politico geographic paradigm. The geographic arc embracing Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the west and Kashmir to the east may well be the next source serious of conflict in the world. It may originate in the west, in the east or in both places at once.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union- has created a geopolitical vacuum in Central Asia. The resurgence of Islam in the six Central Asian republics has provoked competing ambitions of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for influence in the area. The continued instability of Afghanistan and the dangerous ethnic violence in Pakistan increase the danger. Pakistani relations with China are friendly and cooperative; both share a distrust of India. In any event, Pakistan is at the epicentre not only by virtue of geography, but also because of its history, religion, culture and ethnicity. Whatever fire may emerge from this tinderbox, Pakistan will be a pivot. Perhaps the source of conflict or perhaps a mediating influence. Whatever the future holds, the United States must recognize the strategic significance of Pakistan.”

Enter a long URL to make tiny:

The Earliest Pakistanis: Soan River Civilization

Filed under: British Raj, Earliest Pakistanis, Gandhara Cilivilzation, Greek bactria, Indus Valley Civilization, Kushan Empire, Mughal Era, Neolithic times, Palelithic Times, Post independence, Two Nation Theory, Uncategorized — Moin Ansari @ 5:43 am
Tags: History of Pakistan

We will attemp to publish articles about Pakistani hsitory on this site. Some of the history is hijacked by other neighbors.

Comments (5)

Pakistan Historian

September 20, 2008

5000 Years ago Pakistan existed as the Indus Valley Civilization

September 16, 2008

Why Pakistan was created?

The Earliest Pakistanis: Soan River Civilization

The Geographic Two Nation Theory

Why we created Pakistan” TNT vs ONT

Ancient Pre-History trade routes between China and Pakistan

How Brahmans Exterminated Buddhism in South Asia

Junagarh & Manvadar

Archives

Current News

Recent Posts

Tags

Kashmir

Rupee News Feed

Pakistan Ledger

Hot Topics

Iqbal’s message

Current news and views from Pakistan Ledger

The company we keep