Was the Two Nation Theory flawed?

Published: January 29, 2013

Time has exposed the contradictions of the two nation theory. As a basis for nationhood, religion is divisive. DESIGN: ERUM SHAIKH

Pakistan, the product of the two-nation theory, is struggling to be a nation, 65 years after conception. 

Even the usually taciturn army chief has lamented,

“Disillusionment, desperation, religious bigotry, political disharmony and discord seem to permeate our lives.”

Much of this is the unintended consequence of the theory.

Jinnah had realised that the theory had the potential for unleashing fissiparous tendencies that would cripple national development.

Just three days prior to independence, he called on Pakistanis not to interject religion into their public lives. The important role of minorities was enshrined in the national flag with a white bar.

Jinnah’s call was a tall order that would test the mettle of his countrymen. Soon after his death, they succumbed to the centrifugal forces of religious intolerance unleashed by the notion that Muslims were so different from Hindus that they constituted a nation of their own.

They were unable to comply with the centripetal forces of “unity, faith, and discipline” that Jinnah espoused in every other speech during his short tenure as governor general.

The theory failed to build a nation because it was mired in contradictions.

 If Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations, then how were the Hindus in Pakistan going to lead normal lives?

Their lives would be just as circumscribed as the lives of the Muslims left behind in India. How realistic were Jinnah’s calls for relegating religion to the private sphere, coming within days after religion had been used to create their nation?

This U-turn was as incomprehensible to the common man as it was to the political scientist.

The theory’s central premise was shattered when East Pakistan, home to a majority of Pakistanis, broke away in 1971. It proved that the Muslims living in the western and eastern provinces were two nations and not one.

Going a few centuries back in time, when the Timurid prince Babur invaded northern India in 1526, was it not the case that he had attacked a Muslim ruler, Sultan Ibrahim Lodhi, and not a Hindu ruler?

If Muslims were indeed a single nation, then why would Babur mount the attack? Being Muslim did not represent political unity.

Indeed, wasn’t Muslim history full of battles and fights between Muslims in which the most atrocious war crimes had been carried out?

If they shared a common religion, history, social mores and cultural values, why were Muslims unable to live in peace and harmony with each other? Was religion unable to bridge differences in ethnicity, language, culture, history and geography?

If it could not bridge these ‘secular’ differences, then how was it supposed to bring peace and harmony among the ethnically eclectic and geographically diverse groups that were to comprise Pakistan?

Even if Hindus and Muslims were truly two separate nations, was it not still possible for them to live amicably in a single country, like they had done for the most part under British rule for a century and under Mughal rule for two prior centuries.

How was it that Hindus, who were in majority, had allowed themselves to be ruled by a minority during the Mughal period but that Muslims, facing the prospect of independence from the British, were unwilling to allow themselves to be ruled by the majority?

Furthermore, why should the theory only be true in pre-partition India?

If it were true, then Muslims everywhere should be living in a single country, not in 56 countries (just in the Arab world there are 23.) If religion is not sufficient to bind all Muslims into a single country, then how could it bind the Muslims of India into a single country?

What is there to prevent the theory from being invoked in all other countries where Muslims are in a minority?

What is there to prevent the proliferation of ‘little Pakistan’ in the US, Europe or Latin America?

The fact that none of this has happened invalidates the theory’s central postulate.

In science, a theory is only accepted if it stands up to evidence; the two-nation theory does not and should be rejected.

Not so, say its adherents. They have converted the theory into a dogma which leads them to assert that Pakistan’s serial failures are due to bad leadership and not faults in the design.

As Pakistanis ponder their future, they should reflect on why Jinnah, who used religion to create Pakistan, also urged them to confine it to their private lives.

Time has exposed the contradictions of the two nation theory. As a basis for nationhood, religion is divisive.

If it is to survive the current crisis, one of many that has visited it in the past decade, each worse than its predecessor, another basis will have to be found for Pakistan’s nationhood.

What might that be?

Read more by Dr Ahmad here or follow him on Twitter @AhmadFaruqui


Dr Ahmad Faruqui

An economist and a political commentator based in San Francisco. Author of "Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan" and "Musharraf's Pakistan, Bush's America and the Middle East."

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • Queen

    There is a need to understand that the Hindu religion is based on various castes and the people of one caste usually do not prefer to mingle with people belonging to other castes. ( No offense to any one ) Similarly, Muslims too find it difficult to interact with Hindus. People of the two religions do interact in daily lives but there are certain unseen boundaries and limitations. Therefore, I believe that the creation of Pakistan on the basis of two nation theory is justified. Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    I am an Indian and I believe Two Nation Theory is correct!


    Pakistan, was and will remain the best thing to have happened to India. Muslims were always distinct from Hindus-Sikhs-Jains-Buddhists. Same reason why a Sikh has been PM for almost a decade and nobody has a problem with it. The history of the Islamic world in the modern era tells a story.

    I’ll only quote examples, leave the inference to you all.

    Malaysia: 40% non-Muslim. Sharia law implemented.
    Ethiopia: 35% Muslim. Call for Sharia by Muslims. Militants affiliated to Al Qaeda are waging a war against the state to achieve this.
    Mali: Same thing.
    Somalia: Same thing.
    Egypt: Same thing really. Muslim Brotherhood promised modernity and but gave an Islamist Constitution, minority rights trampled upon.
    Turkey: Strictly secular Military’s powers are being clipped by an Islamist leaning Democratic Govt. When sufficient power is acquired by the Islamist powers, things will turn ugly.

    The above scenarios are purely facts and as the author suggests science suggests theories are tested against evidence and then widely accepted.

    Jinnah was right, but you don’t create nations based on such theories of division. Gandhi, Nehru spoke of unity, Jinnah of division. There lies all the difference.

    Another problem was the utter confusion created by Jinnah. Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    “As Pakistanis ponder their future, they should reflect on why Jinnah, who used religion to create Pakistan, also urged them to confine it to their private lives.”

    He also said there should be Sharia in Pakistan. What about that?

    Use an idea to create a nation, but ask its citizens to not adopt it in the public sphere. Does that makes sense? Recommend

  • Bilawal Khoso

    No it was flawed. Look at how well we are treating our minorities. And for our Muslim brothers, we have adopted the Afghans and started killing the Shias. Recommend

  • Ali

    I think the creation of a separate state for Muslims was necessary not for the above stated reasons which are indulgent in ignorance and factually incorrect, but for reasons well explained by your super star Shah Rukh Khan. Treatment of Muslims as second class citizens in your society, their social status, disparity in opportunities available to them and exclusion from society is evident in your own census which indicate Muslims in India suffer the rule of a highly prejudiced ruling Hindu elite. Sikhs, Christians, low caste Hindus, adhiwasi or native people and Buddhists are not exempt from this mistreatment as well, they lack equal opportunity. Positions as a Muslim President and Sikh President are nothing but ceremonial, same as Obama being president doesn’t means racism no longer exist against African Americans and POC in the US, same as electing a female prime minister twice doesn’t mean sexism and misogyny is no longer prevalent in Pakistani society. But if you are going to reason with hate, rather than open your eyes to the religious extremism and exclusion in your society instead of trying to improve it and becoming a truly inclusive, great secular India with equal opportunity and rights, then by all means continue. Societies suffer because of people who close their eyes to their own ills and prejudices. Best of luck to people trying to create a truly great, racially and religiously inclusive Indian nation. It was because people who thought otherwise were in power, and still are, that Muslims felt insecure enough to demand a separate state.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    Was the two-nation theory was flawed – this is an excellent question to be asking 65 years after independence. It shows the level of confusion in Pakistan from parroting the same mantra for decades and reducing the percentage of minorities from 25% to 2% during this period. The fact is that minorities in all Islamic states of yore were second-class citizens – the same was true of Hindus in most of the different muslim states within pre-British India; thus many muslim (intellectuals (ignoring oxymorons for now) assumed that once the Hindus attained political power, they would mete out the same behaviour manifold to exact revenge for centuries of ill-treatment, as they saw the abyss staring back at them. This was the basis for the Pakistan movement – where the elite wanted to carve out their own state where they could continue ruling is petty potentates and escape (supposed) retribution. The average muslim had no hand in these centuries of intolerance (and was frankly no better off under muslim rulers than under hindu) and hence 85% of Indian muslims did not migrate to the proposed promised land. Thus the 2-nation theory fell flat on its face, not in 1971 as is popularly assumed, but on 15-Aug 1947 itself.Recommend

  • stranger

    Of course its very much flawed. Is it not too late to delve into this subject now. We should never have ‘seperated’ ourselves like this . Our leaders should have agreed to form small states based on language or religion and not an entire nation as a chunk. that would have been much easier.Recommend

  • Trax

    I think the flaw is in understanding the “N” in “TNT”. In Pakistan “Nation” is defined by those who have power/money and those who don’t. I think it has worked for us…you see sectarian killings, you see targeted non-sectarian killings, you see karo-kari, you name it…there is nothing wrong with the theory…that is the theory that made the British rule all over the world….Divide and Rule… TNT does just that. It is a source of contant divisions. Guess why the ongoing province issue is on in Punjab/KP etc? TNT! Who said only the people of the time had the authority to define “nation” as Muslims and Hindus? We are doing that everyday and moving slowly towards further sub-divisions…be it within the boundaries of Pakistan….and it can go on upto your street level btw (seen those barriers?…so called in the name of security?)Recommend

  • Chinmay

    As an Indian, let me just suggest this to Pakistanis: the real question is not whether the Two-Nation-Theory WORKS or not, but whether it is MORAL or not. Today, in the year 2013, is such an idea humane? Is it ethical? Does this idea have a positive or negative effect on building a positive, inclusive, diverse country? So even if Pakistani Muslims were completely united in their nationalism on the basis of “Pakistan ka matlab kya…” etc., THE TWO-NATION THEORY WOULD STILL BE IMMORAL because it would mean that, by definition, Pakistani Hindus were citizens of a foreign country, of the “other”, enemy nation. Jinnah’s August 11 speech was too little, too late. You can’t go around the country (British India) spreading religious divisiveness and intolerance and separatism for 7 years, talk endlessly about how “Hindus and Muslims can never evolve a common nationality”, and then suddenly say we’re all going to live happily ever after. Pakistanis themselves, ultimately, will have to reject the core ideologies of Jinnah and Iqbal. The important point to make here is, while Gandhi and Nehru surely had many flaws and failings, the CORE IDEAS of Gandhi and Nehru will continue to be relevant and inspire people all over the world, while the CORE IDEAS of Jinnah and Iqbal (Two-Nation Theory, Islamic State) will become, as time progresses, less and less relevant and more and more belonging to the dark period of human history.Recommend

  • Adil Samee

    Well Well here i can read some really interesting views, first of all Seriously i really appreciate courage of Express tribune team to come up with such a question..Views and opinion can differ but if we go through history lessons properly (Not the self made history) we will finds the facts which can be mind boggling. Mr. Mohd Bin Qasim was the first to hit sindh in 712 AD and then uptill 1857 (Bahadur Shah Zafar) for the majority of time period Muslims ruled and conqured this part of the world to plunder the wealth of this region while we say that they visited us to spread Islam (Thats cool). Now we don’t think even that was that rule over majority of hindus was ethical, we don’t have any justification for that rule as well. Then why do we cry that Hindus ruled us. Other thing i read that Pakistan was formed just because we have different religion, different customs, differnt values and bla bla and on the basis of two-nation theory Pakistan was formed. If this is all right then why Bangladesh was formed when we had same religion and values. Now people would say that either political forces or Army or India was involved in disintegrating Pakistan, but i would say there are many things which creat much more stronger bond then the religion. So eventually for me atleast concept of Two-nation theory got null and void.It doesn’t mean that i am less patriotic, it’s just that we are just unclear about our own history and we brag. We were never in minority in India, we were second majority guys. Even today if we look at the countries which were part of United India Population of Muslims is 64 crores while hindus are 80 crores, how can we even say that a popuplation of 64 crores is minority..May Allah have mercy on us and help us .Recommend

  • Nitish

    But why do muslims still living in india unnecessarily enjoying money and secured environment created by us….Atleast we Brahmins want them to leave India……We hate muslims SRK,Salman,Amir etc ets..they r pakistanis…They r not indian.Recommend

  • Raza Khan

    Two Nation Theory was Totally Flawed! Partition was a Blunder.Recommend

  • Queen

    @Adil Samee:

    I agree with your views about the separation of Bangladesh. I know that there are many other issues that compel a nation to become united; it can be a feeling deprivation, an ideology, anything nut you cannot deny the fact the religion, too plays an important role in bringing people together. I agree that it was the negligence of Pakistani leaders which developed feeling of resentment among Est Pakistan and gave space to anti-Pakistan forces to carry out their activities at that time. However, I disagree with your views about the Muslim population in India. If we look at the state of Muslims in India, then I will support the two-nation theory. This is because the Indian society is based on different castes and as I have mentioned in my earlier post, i believe if would have had been living in India, it would have had difficult for me to exists in a discriminating society. Even though there are problems and sectarianism in Pakistan, but i still feel safe when i look at the state of Muslims living in India. Recommend

  • khalid

    We are raising this question after 65 years just because of Afghanistan, these are the post 9 11 issues and as we have a long border with Afghanistan…its a difficult time for Pakistan , need to be strong and strong on beliefs as well…it could happened with any country….once things gets calm , these questions will be turned down…Recommend

  • whynoww

    Two nation theory was correct:
    1. Too much communal bloodshed in India (it’s a contineuous process, anyhow)
    2. Bangladesh is still a muslim saparate country, not a state of IndiaRecommend

  • kaalchakra

    Chinmay and Adil

    You two are confusing the issue of morality. X’s right to rule over Y does not automatically create Y’s right to rule over X. You may believe it does, but it is not a universally acknowledged value.Recommend

  • thehinduzionist

    We need to create separate hindu nation for hindus in pakistan.
    also for ahmadis there need to be a separate nation . muslims in india should get out.Recommend

  • thehinduzionist

    Ali sharukh is a mullah. he got all the fame from yash raj . but just because some politician told something he keeps speaking against entire india. and also what is wrong in asking him to move to pakistan . he is not indian he is a pakistani residing in india.
    and also muslims got separate nation which is where they should go.Recommend


    @Queen: Your Majesty, it needs to be pointed out with the longest finger that since you mentioned that Muslims too find it difficult to interact with Hindus; Erm… Muslims are also divided in sub sects like Wahabis, Barelvis, Deobandis, Sufi’s who really dont co-exist peacefully. Am not even going to harp on the Ahmedi’s, the Shia’s, the Hazaras and whatever other you may have in your fold. Recommend

  • Op

    the author dont have the understanding regarding the basis of 2 nation theory… if democracy is not working in Pakistan then this does not mean democracy is bad so its like that..so please if your confused abt it this is not our problem Recommend

  • Feroz

    The two nation theory was a creation of a small section of the population to grab power in a non democratic fashion. Certain Muslim feudals in India who never fought for Independence and never went to jail felt they would lose their perks and privelages given to them by the British in Independent India. All else were bogus concoctions created to justify illegitimate demands. Religion came into the picture because most of those who suffered the insecurity happened to be Muslims.Recommend


    @Trax: Get over this Nani, Dadi bedtime kahani myth! The Brits never played divide and rule, it was the ‘My tolerance runs out at the tip of my nose’ syndrome which gave birth to the Two Nation Theory and caused the partition.

    @Kaalchakra: You’re softening man, get with the program dude! Your fanatical and delusional theories are being missed. Recommend

  • Intelektual

    Jinnah was not an ORACLE sue him !!
    And I was not aware that for any theory to be correct there is a 65 year testing period to check !!
    The facts and ground reality are that Hinduism and Islam are entirely differnt but South Asians culturaly Are quite similar !
    Using the religion as a divide and rule POLITICAL Conquest point within south Asia would have resulted and in a much more fierce result for the whole region and this still remains true !
    But admitting a differnce is NOT licencing the minorities to be punished for the same !
    What we are doing is not a consequence of “Two Nation Theory” but the very same reason “Two Nation Theory” was coined to prevent !
    Also its not at all Islamic either !!
    Its the fault of extreme mindset, abuse of power and misusing the religion card to get out of any thick and thin situation !! all of these facilitated by corruption and political parties ! Recommend

  • Truthful

    Creation of Bangladesh proves TNT. It is a timeless theory as Pakistan itself has been proving it. Bangladesh was created as the 2nd nation in 1971. Next in 1974 the TNT was applied to create a new nation of Ahmadis. Having completed this job, now the TNT is being applied to found a new nation of Shias. Once this is completed, a new group viz. nation will be found to ensure the validity of TNT. So the author need not be defensive. TNT is still strong and valid in Pakistan and nothing will ever change that as more and more nations, who cannot live with each other, will sought to be created in Pakistan.Recommend

  • http://delhi Indian Wisdom

    Was the Two nation theory flawed?………
    and what’s the point of asking this question after 65 yeas???
    you should have thought about this question way back before 1947.
    for now it has proved to be the best thing that happened to India.
    Long live Mr. Jinnah!!! We owe you sincere gratitude from the core of our heart…..Recommend

  • Qaisrani

    @Anoop: you are right. I am a Pakistani muslim and i second your idea that partition was the best thing ever happened to India. In fact, “true Islam” is Utopia and muslims want to chase it wherever they are above 10%. Thier religion is not religion but an ideology which demands complete submission from its followers(at least in theory). Political islam is worst thing ever discovered by muslim scholars in 20 century. Had we been together, muslims would have made India, a worst place to live in in pusuance of establishment of Islamic state in all India over. Pakistan and Bangladesh apart, now you can live in peace with remaining muslims in minority.
    For all my Pakistani and muslim friends who will read my comments, let me mention it clealry that i am “Mir Jaffar and Mir Saddiq” and i am proud.Cheers.Recommend

  • silverline

    Historically, India (sub-continent) was never one country/nation. The idea of Partition is so primordial and natural for India (sub-continent). What’s the issue ?Recommend

  • observer

    ERR, AHEM, shouldn’t we be discussing the 3 Nation Theory instead. The East Pakistanis are feeling left out from this debate.Recommend

  • abhi

    Jinnah himself negated two nation theory when he said regardless of religion hindu and muslim both will be equal pakistani. Recommend

  • limogesV

    No flaw in two nation theory. Pakistan has governence problems, so does India. No country is perfect.Recommend

  • manishj

    Beats me when some of the coments here are being made to compare indian state of affair with that of Pakistan. The writer of this blog is simply asking one question- Has the objective of creating Pakistan( whatever may be the reason) been achieved or not. Or atleast is Pakisan moving in the right direction?

    What is happening in India is out of context as long as this blog is concerned.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    It is an illusion to imagine a muslim and a hindu with a single Nationality, said Mr Jinnah in 1940. It was true then and it is true today and shall be true for all times to come. The task for muslims living in India to extricate themselves from the majority of non-believers has not diminished.

    The process of a dialogue has not been broken, says the Indian High Commissoner.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Working Woman


    Dear Author,

    I can’t digest and understand the very initial part of your blog

    “Jinnah had realised that the theory had the potential for unleashing fissiparous tendencies that would cripple national development.”

    Really?? When did Jinnah tell you about this?

    Trust me, I am curious from top to bottomRecommend

  • Hunter Punter

    Frankly In such an uneven socities as exist the subcontinent, there are not two or three but a thousand nations. they are based on [power structures as happens all over the world and al;ways has happened in History. People divide themselves based on caste, class, wealth, education, property, religious sects. Everyone rubs with his own sub group. In that sense Jinnah was right. However, In nation building, you have to make sure that all societal divides, still give each other space and sharing. Since that did ot happen in pakistan, bangladesh broke off. Since that is happening in India( where the dalits, Other backweard castes, and the poor) are in a mojority, they are ensring that they get their equal rights. That is why India is a global power, Pakitan is on the verge of a collpase.If religion was a sufficent condition for nationhood, what better than pakistan, afganistan and iran become one nation! Alas, Iran and afganistan will absolutely refuse to have anything to do with a flawed failing state.Recommend

  • JSM

    Today, Shahrukh Khan has topped the inaugural Forbes India Celebrity 100 list. His earnings are more than Rs 202 Crores. Please see the following link:


    There are 3 muslims among the top 10 in tnis list, the second also being a muslim. Does this show treatment of Muslims as second class citizens in Indian society, their social status, disparity in opportunities available to them and exclusion from society.

    Muslims themselves are to blame for their problems. Till 1971, most of muslims in India thought that Pakistan was their future (mustaqbil) and they were in India on a temporary basis. While the rest of Indians were struggling to improve their lot, they were waiting to migrate. Separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan brought an awakening among Indian muslims that all was not well on the other side. They have been left behind by a quarter of century. It will take time to catch up.

    I will not argue about the relevance of reasons for partition of India but it is good that India was partitioned- otherwise we would have been Indian Islamic Republic and not Republic of India.Recommend

  • Working Woman


    You know what, People like you, who couldn’t do their part of betraying Nation at the time partition, are doing well by writing this type of blogs and creating an air of confusion.Recommend

  • leobrine

    flawed or not flawed, Two Nation Theory was successful …. And Jinnah was the greatest of all strategists, master of the Game.Recommend

  • Genesis

    Jinnah wanted a separate nation for Muslims and he was convinced that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations and so cannot live together..that he was not religious is besides the point.Having partitioned there is no going back now and let each make its destiny.Sadly for Pakistan which believed that religion is a unifying factor proved a disillusionment and has to live with the reality that religion though the opium of the masses is no unifying factor.Bangladesh proves it.Recommend

  • http://peddarowdy.wordpress.com Anoop

    Just to make things interesting.

    Jinnah on his death bed whispered to Liaquat Ali Khan that Pakistan was his “biggest mistake”.

    Time Magazine quotes Jinnah thus and creates an uproar in India. It was obviously not allowed to be published in Pakistan.

    Ilahi Baksh, who was Jinnah’s Physician for a while, and also served Alama Iqbal, wrote a book about it all. He quotes Jinnah in the book admitting to Liaquat about his mistake in creating Pakistan.

    Read all about it in the book:


    Or in the Time Magazine archives.

    So, next time you defend TNT, remember that Jinnah, the man who started it all, admitted to its fallacies. :) Recommend

  • Khan

    Most of the time when I read from the ET opinion and especially the blog, one thing just came to my mind again and again and that is, if you really want to be write something just pick up some story of brutality/negative side of Pakistan or even better about Islam and ET will be more than happy to let your post be part of its blog.

    Its always very easy to pick up negative points about Pakistan or Islam. So much biased approach and do not know the reason why. Yes there are issue, yes there are problems but then isn’t there anything good in Pakistan? Just to give you an example few month back I read a blog with the name like “Lets paint the whole green on the Pakistan Falg” the article was discussing about the discrimination towards minorities. Now recently we have seen King Khan famous statement right… and I am 100% sure if someone in from Pakistan industry has said something like that almost all of my ET blogger will be beating the drums on that..but now since this statement is against India and somewhat supports the existence of the Pakistan all are just sitting quite or mumbling. Barvo ET and Bravo bloggers who just know one thing keep showing the negative side of Islam and Pakistan.Recommend

  • Genesis

    This caste bashing of Hindus,one should remember that it was this caste that saved India from being overrun by invaders.Try however hard they might they could not break through this barrier and so India has remained predominantly Hindu even after thousands of years of rule by the invaders!!!Recommend

  • Scales9

    If the author is living in Pakistan than he should try to buy a flat in Mumbai on behalf of his Muslim relative may be and test two nation theory himself. Good LuckRecommend

  • more Concerned


    ‘Atleast we Brahmins want them to leave India.”

    There is a limit to everything, even stupidity. You think India belong to Brahmins only! The problem Brahmins like you created for centuries is still hurting the rest of the country (at least 98%) of it. Help yourself with a copy of the Indian constitution. Also read history of India from ancient to medieval to modern day before making comments like an illiterate

  • bestview

    It was Nehru who partitioned India. Jinnah had accepted the Cabinet Mission of 1946 for a united IndiaRecommend

  • whynoww

    India is relevent. Because in India, all Non Hindus are unsafe (christians of Orrissa, Sikhs of Punjab, muslims of gujarat/kashmir, Dalits of UP, Naxalites of Jhaarkhand, communits of bengal etc etc). Also, India has sub-saharan poverty, it’s a fact. All is not good in India Recommend

  • J T

    The two nation theory was flawed as has been proven various instances which have already been mentioned here. The very essence of the TNT was cynical with the implicit belief that the majority community will eventually turn into a hegemonic oppressor. But this cynical view held by the founding fathers and the subsequent leaders seeped into their own belief systems, with the leaders then granting themselves this strange legitimacy for the oppression of all kinds of minorities at home. While India has had its issues with communal harmony from time to time, one of the central ideas of India is secularism and this has helped it maintain relative harmony. The people of Pakistan too need to work to create a national identity that is not solely predicated on the notion of entitlement for the majority religion. However, given how the word “secular” is an anathema in politics in Pakistan today, it seems a tall order for the moment.Recommend

  • Rashid

    The author asks,

    “How was it that Hindus, who were in majority, had allowed themselves to be ruled by a minority during the Mughal period but that Muslims, facing the prospect of independence from the British, were unwilling to allow themselves to be ruled by the majority?”

    That’s a question worth trillions of Dollars.Recommend

  • stuti

    Ask the muslims of India if they would like to migrate to Pakistan? You will get the answer. The problem is that there is a section of muslims in India who still live in the seventh century. Secondly there is no law in India which discriminates against muslims. However, if the muslims themselves do not wish to come out their self created ghettos, then even God cannot help them.Recommend

  • growhigh

    the Two Nation Theory may be flawed till 1937 congress govt. Congress rule was an eye opener for the muslims, so they ratified the Two Nation Theory and voted for Jinnah in 1946.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    I despair for the future of our country when I read comments like yours.Recommend

  • Maria

    It’s always amusing to see some older commentators whose families originated from India always question the two nation theory. I’ve come across your writings against Pakistan in the US before. I wonder if this has to do with the fact that many of our Urdu speaking compatriots in Karachi still have relatives in India. In actuality I have yet to come across a native Pakistani even question the 2 nation theory whether they are Pashtun, Punjabi, Baluchi, Sindi or Kashmiri, The simple reason is that these citizens of Pakistan do not consider India as their culturel. I am Pakistani by the way.Recommend

  • gp65

    There are 2 issues here. Validity of 2 nation theory and existence of Pakistan as an independent state which we should not confuse. I and most Indians like me would be as unwilling to roll back partition today as people in Pakistan.

    However I do not believe in the TNT. What it says is that Hindus and Muslims are 2 nations and cannot live together in one nation. Well Hindus and Muslims DO live together in India, so if I accepted the 2NT, I would have to disown the Indian Muslims which I am certainly unwilling to do. Moreover what about Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, atheists and agnostics – what nation would they belong to if there were 2 nations – one for Hindus and one for Muslims?

    What perhaps maybe accurate is that if Muslims are in majority, they will not give equal rights to people of other faith. We have seen this play out in Pakistan.

    @Queen: “There is a need to understand that the Hindu religion is based on various castes and the people of one caste usually do not prefer to mingle with people belonging to other castes. ( No offense to any one ) ”

    This was a cultural corruption not something that was inherently part of Hinduism. You should go to sources besides Pakistan studies if you want to learn about Hinduism. OFcourse there is no need for you to learn about Hinduism – but then don’t opine about a religion that you know very little about.
    Even if it were true that Hindus would ot like to socially interact with Muslims, there is no reason they could not have lived together in the same country. This is exactly the conclusion that 80% of the Muslims living in present day India came to and hence they did not migrate to Pakistan.Recommend

  • akt

    The two nation theory had been fanned by Btits . Indian leaders were deadly against it . It’s a historical fact . The article is relivant to think upon the issue and shape a new Pakistan to survive in the secular world order . Religion has nothing to do with conducting the state affairs .Draft a new constitution accordingly or be ready to face more mess ahead .Recommend

  • Hold your horses


    Correction to what you say – Sikhs and Christians are amongst the most hardworking, educated and prosperous communities.

    Would help if you get correct facts. I belong to a minority group in India which is part of the main stream (and we do not prefer to be addressed as minorities) There is equal opportunity for hardworking and educated people in India, irrespective of what community he/she belongs to.Recommend

  • Raj – USA

    Pakistanis talk of muslims around the world and have never done anything for any of them. Millions of Pakistanis are still languishing in Bangladesh and Pakistan has done nothing for them. Shahrukh Khan is important but who cares about Shabaz Bhatti or Salman Taseer. The judge who sentenced Mumtaz Qadri had to flee to KSA with his family. Sherry Rehman, who was posted to USA as its Ambassador just to save her life as she faced threats for introducing a bill in the Parliament calling for changes in blasphemy law. She is summoned by Pakistan’s Supreme Court to answer blasphemy charges but shall most likely remain in US. She can return to Pakistan only if she is prepared to end up like Shabaz Bhatti or Salman Taseer. Yet Pakistanis worry about Shahrukh Khan. Can Shahrukh Khan visit Pakistan with his wife and kids? Recommend

  • gp65

    @Ali: ” but for reasons well explained by your super star Shah Rukh Khan”
    Shah Rukh was hired by Hindu producers for the most part. HE worked with Hindu heroines who had no problem working with him. His movies were attached by Hindus who made him a star. He may have faced problems going to US after 9/11 but that had no impact in India. He only faced a backlash when he chose to support Pakistani cricketers in the IPL which was just held right after 26/11. This is why some people questioned his loyalty to India at that time. That incident is now history and several of his movies since then have grossed 100+ crores in India and not faced any resistance whatsoever. In fact when the US immigration detained him for interrogation, it is Indian government that sought an apology on his behalf. Jaya Bacchan had also got into a controversy when she said Hum UP wale hain. She is a Hindu. Controversial statements and cntroversies that follow thereafter for public figures like film stars are the norm whether the star is Hindu or Muslim. By no means is Shah Rukh and example of Muslims being treated as a second class citizen in India.

    Incidentally Shah Rukh is married to a Hindu. Recommend

  • gp65

    @Nitish: “But why do muslims still living in india unnecessarily enjoying money and secured environment created by us….Atleast we Brahmins want them to leave India……”

    I am a BRahmin too and I wish no such thing. You are entitled to your view. Please do not imply that this view is shared by ALL Brahmins.Recommend

  • Imtiaz

    with due respect sir, it’s not the two-nation theory which is flawed, but us..Recommend

  • gp65

    @Rex Minor: “The task for muslims living in India to extricate themselves from the majority of non-believers has not diminished.”

    The Muslims living in India had a choice to move to Pakistan. They chose not to. In any case Muslims have chosen to emigrate to countries that are not Muslim majority. SO the notion that no Muslim is comfortable unless they live in a Muslim majority country simply does not stand.Recommend

  • Rajeev Nidumolu

    Indian Muslims at the time of independence overwhelmingly supported TNT and Jinnah’s thesis. The support was the strongest in provinces where the Muslims were minorities.This is despite that Indian Muslim nationalists Maulana Kalam Azad and Baccha Khan were against TNT . Muslims masses did not support Indian Muslim nationalists
    I am not sure that united India would have survived with huge Muslim population which is deeply influenced by TNT. All the energy would have been spent on maintaining unity at the expense of development. United India would have been another Lebanon.Recommend

  • Alex

    @Queen: Please continue to live in Pakistan. None but the author himself is raising a question that is contradicting your claims!!!! The author is from Pakistan. Please use logic and common sense, if SRK was discriminated, how did he become a superstar.? The extent of religious prejudice is reaching heights in Pakistan that even common sense is lacking among some educated!!! So you can eliminate minorites as you are muslim but you expect rights and status when you live in a nomuslim nation? right?
    @Nitish.. please get yourself checked. You do not represent India.Recommend

  • Alex

    @Working Woman:
    Are you not curious why 100 hazaras have been killed and what was the reason for shias massacres? What else will solve your curiosity??? Recommend

  • Diggvijay Singh

    It doesn’t matter whether the Two-nation theory is fully correct or it has some flaws in it. Israel is another country created on religious nationality and it is running very well. There is no reason why Pakistan can’t have a bright future like other countries. Pakistani citizens have to realize the minorities are as integral a part of their country as the Muslims. Islamic law too grants all the protection of life and property to minorities. Pakistan can follow fully democratic governance or a mixed Islamic constitution, either way, citizens have to given their rights and privileges. I also believe that in the coming years, Pakistanis will think of India as a good and helpful neighbor, not an enemy. Recommend

  • Alex

    Please keep that view and please enlighten us why your cricket team and actors are such desperate to come to India. In the mean time, please do not worry about India- our literacy rate is 15% higher at the lowest margin even when compared to the highest margin of Pakistan. Such arrogance not supported by facts is what leads to downfall of a society or nation.In the end please know that you are helping India by thinking it is backward..and useless. Yes you are the best but get support for your views from just another nation …yes just one nation in the entire planet to agree with your views…you get some help…atleast one islamic nation which agrees with your views……Recommend

  • Zalmai

    Tarek Fatah on the two nation theory and Pakistan’s denial of their south Asian roots.

    “Indian civilization is 5,000 years old and its origins are the Indus Valley. It is disgraceful for anyone born on the Indus or its tributaries to deny their Indianness. It’s as if a Frenchman says he is not European.

    Even as a child and a teenager in Pakistan, I was conscious of the fact that I was a child of Asoka as much as I was a descendent of Bullay Shah and Baba Farid.”Recommend

  • Pakistani Baloch

    two nation theory was absolutely rightRecommend


    @Qaisrani: When we first sparred on ET Blogs on some topic relating to France, I found some respect for you. Today that respect has grown so much more! No, its not because you diss people who are fanatics and not because you are self proclaimed Mir Jaffer / Sadiq; its because the gospel truth you speak is so hard to find nowadays. I’ll leave it here by saying this, I’m facing the same trauma of my faith! Recommend


    @stuti: no law in India which discriminates against muslims
    Thats cause they have the AIMPLB! All India Muslim Personal Law Board over and above the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Recommend

  • MK


    For sake of accuracy I would like to comment and provide some back ground to your generalizations.

    I’ll only quote examples, leave the inference to you all.

    Malaysia: 40% non-Muslim. Sharia law implemented.
    CORRECTION: Malaysia is 61% Muslim and Sharia only applies to Muslims (and on top of that only in matters such as marriage, inheritance, divorce, apostasy, religious conversion, and custody among others). No other criminal or civil offences are under the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts.

    Ethiopia: 35% Muslim. Call for Sharia by Muslims. Militants affiliated to Al Qaeda are waging a war against the state to achieve this.
    CORRECTION: Militants are waging war for a separate homeland for People in Ogden region which is Somali by ethnicity. As a trend any time there is a freedom movement in Muslim world both nationalists and religious elements start together, but religious element wins because of broader support base (generally from Muslims of other ethnicities providing them support based on common element ie religion) . So essentially it is a separatist war (thanks to colonial powers). Nobody is looking to implement Sharia in entire Ethiopia.

    Mali: Same thing.
    CORRECTION: Mali (and a lot of other African countries have straight line borders which were drawn on table between colonial powers) same case for Mali, Mali has Black Africans in the south and North Africans Tuaregs (who are not black) the north. Tuareg land was divided between 4 countries by colonial powers. So this started as a Nationalist separatist movement initiated by “National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad”. However as what happened in Afghanistan, Kashmir Chechnya etc where they all started as a nationalist movement but was rather high jacked by Islamic militants is happening in North Mali as well. West did not bother helping Tuaregs in their struggle but came running now when Islamists are taking control and sidelined Tuaregs. Even if they kick Islamists out Tuareg issue in North Mali is still not resolved. So root cause is colonial powers drawing unnatural borders dividing people and tribes in multiple countries.

    Somalia: Same thing.
    CORRECTION: Somalis war started as a civil war between various clans after Saeed Barre government was thrown out. Union if Islamic Courts was only stable government that they had after decades, they were Islamic inspired but not fanatic by any means. However when Ethiopia invaded Somalia with US air cover and drove UIC government out, Al Shabab who are fanatics moved in and took control. And ironically enough Sheikh Ahmad (of UIC) was then chosen as president of Somali government in exile and now they are trying to bring same person back in rule. Fanatics Al Shabab are a result of US invasion and intervention in Somalia. UIC and its head Sheikh Ahmed was started to bring calm in the country, which was disturbed by Ethiopian/US Invasion. Remember Iran, when it was once a secular democracy under Mosadik in the 50s and CIA toppled him and brought an absolute monarch (Dictator the Shah), and as a reaction Iran went extreme and became a religious theocracy. Had they left Mosadik complete his term and let democracy evolve, Iran would have been very different. They repeated the same mistake 50 years later in Somalia.

    Egypt: Same thing really. Muslim Brotherhood promised modernity and but gave an Islamist Constitution, minority rights trampled upon.
    CORRECTION: Have you even read (at least highlights) of the constitution. Muslim brother hood is a democratic and charity organization. They WON election in Egypt and Tunisia, and they lost in Libya. Their constitution was put to a referendum and approved by the people.

    Turkey: Strictly secular Military’s powers are being clipped by an Islamist leaning Democratic Govt. When sufficient power is acquired by the Islamist powers, things will turn ugly.
    CORRECTION: Turkey’s army is not Secular. Turkey is secular now. Secularism means religions are free to practice and state does not interfere. Turkish army prohibited Muslims from performing many rites of their faith. Now they can (along with all religions). Canada allows Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers and exempt them from helmets when wearing a turban, this is called secularism not what Turkey used to be under military. AK Party is no different than Christian Democrats of Europe. Turkey’s GDP per capita doubled in their 2 terms and is projected to double in next 8 years again. Even non-religious Turks support current government. (Well they won 3 straight elections that is enough proof). Putting military back in barracks and stopping their interference was required (still more needs to be done in Turkey). I hope Pakistan one day can follow that and our military stays in barracks and is under civilian control.

    Gandhi, Nehru spoke of unity, Jinnah of division.
    CORRECTION: Jinnah spoke of autonomy for longest time. Have you ever noticed that although Britain is one country in UN but its components are very autonomous. To an extent that Scotland and England send separate sporting teams in many sporting events. Jinnah wanted similar autonomy but was rejected by Nehru and Gandhi. Pakistan was created by Nehru and Gandhi’s stubbornness. Jinnah was not a militant, he campaigned for his ideology and put it forward in a REFERENDUM to the people, Unionist party campaigned against his idea and lost in what PEOPLE choose. So if you agree or disagree with Jinnah’s ideology, it was supported and endorsed in a democratic referendum by the concerned people. Recommend

  • Critical

    “How was it that Hindus, who were in majority, had allowed themselves to be ruled by a minority during the Mughal period but that Muslims, facing the prospect of independence from the British, were unwilling to allow themselves to be ruled by the majority?”

    That’s a question worth trillions of Dollars.

    I just cant understand why Indian/Pakistani muslims keep telling that they ruled India for 1000 years…Unless,they had a direct lineage to the Mughal empire,it sounds laughable to the least…

    Will u agree if a local christian says he ruled you for 200 years because his religion is same as the British monarchy??

    Gengis Khan,a non-muslim ruled over Muslim places of Iran
    Ranjit Singh,a Sikh ruled over the current land of Pakistan and Afghanistan

    When the Turkic/Afghan/Mongolian muslim rulers ruled over India,some of the Hindus converted to Islam,while many didnt…
    They converted because
    1.Some of them truly embraced Islam,influenced by Sufi Saints
    2.They had to choose between Sword and Quran
    3.They couldnt pay the high jizya tax
    4.Many of the invading soldiers were very eager to spread their DNA to the local women. The women had a choice to get married to a muslim or remain outcast…

    But most of them converted for the 2,3,4…Now why are u people so proud about the fact that ur forefather couldnt deal with adversity and defected at the first chance,rather than stay true to their culture,no matter what may come…

    Now,dont talk that Islamic rulers were all tolerant of religion….There are hardly any pagans in Arabia and Egypt,hardly any Buddhists in Afghanistan,any Zoroastrians in Iran….but India is still a Hindu majority country…That shows the resilience of HindusRecommend

  • Critical

    This article is for u

    Criticizing such reactions to his article from Pakistan, Shah Rukh issued a statement saying, “Ironically, the article I wrote was actually meant to reiterate that on some occasions my being an Indian Muslim film star is misused by bigots and narrow-minded people who have misplaced religious ideologies for small gains… And, ironically, the same has happened through this article… once again.”

    “We have an amazing, democratic, free and secular way of life. In the environs that we live here in my country India, we have no safety issues regarding life or material. As a matter of fact, it is irksome for me to clarify this non-existent issue… My own family and friends are like a mini-India,” he wrote.

    Khan implored people to actually read his article before reacting to it, adding that people shouldn’t be misled by those who “use religion as an anchor for unrest and a policy of divide and rule”.

    *The last paragraph is for you and your beloved Hafiz Saeed…Recommend

  • G. Din

    @more Concerned: to Nitish
    “The problem Brahmins like you created for centuries is still hurting the rest of the country (at least 98%) of it. Help yourself with a copy of the Indian constitution. Also read history of India from ancient to medieval to modern day before making comments like an illiterate

    How could a segment of population -just 2% – create problems for 98% of the population and that too for “centuries”? Was that 98% a collection of zombies? Or, was that 2% made up of bin Qasims who used coercion?
    If they did or could, would it be wrong to assume that preponderant majority of that 98% colluded with that minuscule 2%?
    Mind your language! Even 2% have a right to express its opinion howsoever unpalatable it may be to you. Indian Constitution is not sacrosanct. It is a work in progress. Remind yourself if India had listened to the minuscule minority which opposed Nehruvian idiocy, we would not find ourselves lagging by 50 years or so. No one can blame Nehru if rest of Indians went along!
    All prophets have appeared through the ages alone!Recommend

  • http://usa Babloo

    No its not flawed. The point is that while Pakistan implemented that “theory” of Jinnah, and Hindus have virtually vanished from the landscape of Pkaistan, India did not implement the theory.Recommend

  • http://Sydney SK5


    So are you saying that a one line two-nation theory is soley responsible for the mess that Pakistan is in today?. What about corrupt leadership and the war on terror, don’t these two important factors matter at all??. I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you, your points are hugely impractical and senseless to say the least. People nowadays like to think forward and over come their problems responsibly, they don’t ponder what we should’ve done in the past cause thats quiet irrelavant. india and bangladesh have had their share of problems in the past and present, I don’t see them reverting back to the one-nation theory.Recommend

  • JSM

    Like Mujib ur Rehan for Bangladesh.Recommend

  • JSM

    Why Muslims only have problem in buying a flat in Mumbai? Why do othe minorities not have a problem in buying a flat anywhre in India? Please think over it. Recommend

  • rajput

    Cmon SRK is a cry baby. he was an ordinary civilian and became a superstar thanks 2 Hindu Producers and directors supporting him. Also Hindu Indian fans stand for him. When he was detained by US authorities entire nation was upset. Indian govt protested big tym. Shiv Sena scares d hell out of Hindus also, not just Muslims. They r jazbaati n get violent sometimes. But they r not terrorist group like ur LeJ or JuD. Has he ever been attacked by SS? Any1 who speaks abt peace with India gets Labelled as RAW agent in pakistan. I remember reading an article where the writer said RAHAT FATEH ALI KHAN is RAW agent. This is not new. Marvi Sirmed, SAFMA r labelled RAW agents and asked 2 go to India. And plz lets not talk abt minorities. 20 Hindu girls kidnapped forcibly converted every month, nothing like tht ever happens to minorities in India. Can a Muslim girl marry a Hindu guy and live peacefully in Pakistan? No the guy will b asked 2 convert n become muslim. we did not do it to SRK Aamir or Saif. Jews Syrian Christians and Zoroastrians got asylum here among hindus. Hindus supported Dr Kalam 2 b President again. Can we see Pakistanis supporting a non-muslim like tht? Can a non-muslim from a poor family rise 2 such great heights like Dr Kalam did in India? Partition is done. Indians have accepted the fact. Point is now discard the hate India, hate Hindus mentality or else Pakistan will be next Somalia. Bcz hate does not stop at 1 point. Then u start hating Shias & Ahmedis. Later it moves Sects, he is barelvi, I m Deobandi. He is Ismaili I m Ahl-e Hadees. Grow up. Who cares wht religion a person follows as long as he does not create trouble 4 others and disrupts law & Order.Recommend

  • SRK

    To those taking pot-shots at India over the perceived lack of safety, trust, and love for our muslim compatriots because of SRK’s recent article, please read SRK’s reply to all the controversy it has generated, and stop the abuse, please.


  • Stopwhining

    This is similar to blaming democracy for poor governance and unprecedented corruption. After 65 years, Pakistanis had plenty of opportunities to fix it even if it was broken in 1947. But no, like everything else, these shameless Pakistanis always blame their incompetence on someone else.

    The fact is that Jinnah handed a great country to Pakistanis. Rather than building on what they got, they have spent the last 65 years in raping and pillaging the national resources.Recommend

  • Gujesh

    Why Pakistanis are still discussing two nation theory after 65 years ? Their theory of “One Nation, One Religion, One Language” has also become stale. They should be discussing “Four Nation Theory” now.Recommend

  • cut

    Right on the spot.Three nation theory already vindicated.Now that free Balochistan is a matter of time,Four Nation Theory is on the way……..
    Pakistanis should not weep up at the breaking of their state.Pakistanis are the most big hear ted people. Pakistanis believe in Muslim ummah.So long as the break away states are Muslim states,Pakistanis should not worry….. Recommend

  • Working Woman

    So did Jinnah ever whispered in your ear?Recommend

  • pmbm

    Not only Jinnah but Indra Gandhi also believed in TNT, when in 1971 she did not let the Hindu Banglas join Bangladesh.Recommend

  • observer


    Not only Jinnah but Indra Gandhi also believed in TNT, when in 1971 she did not let the Hindu Banglas join Bangladesh.

    Did the ‘Hindu Banglas’ tell you that they wanted to join Bangladesh?Recommend

  • M Azam

    History has proved two nation theory was flawed and total failure. A confused, ignorant mass of people living in a failed state.Recommend

  • Hasan

    I profoundly disagree with this blog.

    1) Jinnah, the politician, was making a political argument, a political argument that virtually ALL politicians make! We can or cannot do xyz. To hold him to that for the rest of time is moronic. When it was no longer a political argument but a reality, he pivoted. Again, ALL politicians do this!

    2) He genuinely feared the violation of human rights in the sub continent and thought that the new land would at least provide cover for its inhabitants

    3) The argument that they lived together in peace and harmony is baloney. It is always peace and harmony until the disfranchised are enlightened and the ability to speak. They finally had a voice from 1857 onward

    4) The failure of ALL politicians post-Jinnah is no reason to blame Jinnah for his brainchild. It is like blaming Washington for America’s failure to its many minorities or Ben-Gurion for a fault in Israel. Is there any doubt had Jinnah ruled for at least 10 years that Pakistan would be in the position of a failed like it is today? Washington had two terms, Ataturk and Nehru had the better part of two decades.

    5) The failure of Pakistan to treat its own well again does not lie with Jinnah. The success of Bangladesh actually supports his argument. He wanted a separate country in the East. The British were not willing to deal.

    6) Jinnah saw Indian Muslims as a people, a nation, a race, like the Jews see themselves as a people, a race, a nation, not merely believers of a religion. There IS a difference. Recommend

  • mka

    That is why all Pakistani cricketers,hockey players,artists,singers etc.etc want to come to India and earn their living.Recommend

  • willy will

    Two nation theory works fine. Muslims are not safe in India. India has bigger problems of voilence and poverty. Muslim genocide in India: Gujarat, babri mosque, kashmirRecommend

  • willy will

    Indians go to america/canada for earning: this does not make India & america one nation.
    Pakistanis go to america/canada for earning: this does not make pakistan & america one nation. Recommend

  • tess rule

    Two nation theory was correct, especially after the anti-muslim 1937 congress govtRecommend

  • Qaisrani

    @BRUISED INDIAN: I am amazed by your memory. Thanks for your appreciation.
    You know it needs so much courage when you have to think out of the box:above all the brainwashing to which you have been through. In the end, you find truth but it comes at a high price. That price is that you lose peace of mind.
    And i hate the idea, when you are supposed to support the argument which have been imposed upon you by birth; May be by being born this side of the border or that side of the border. And this division decided your arguments.Recommend

  • https://twitter.com/Hitendra_Anant Hitendra

    @Queen: Probably you have not spent life in India. I am no advocate of the Caste system but it is a much more complex system. It is princiapally based on work and skills. Hence some castes have all relations except marriages, some have no relations at all. But since it was less a religious matter and more an organization of society, it still prevails.

    I am fully against caste system but you can’t compare the caste problems with the religion problem. Recommend

  • Arijit Sharma

    @Nitish: “But why do muslims still living in india unnecessarily enjoying money and secured environment created by us….Atleast we Brahmins want them to leave India……

    You are a disgrace. But yes, the primacy of the Indic faiths – Jainism, Buddhism, Sanatan Dharma and Sikhism must be restored in the ENTIRE sub-continent.Recommend

  • http://USA Jim

    Very courageous of ET and the writer to publish this subject at a sensitive time. First of all, I should say @Nitish does not represent the views of Indians or Hindus. He sounds like a deranged nutcase and there are such people everywhere. Secondly, since SRK has been brought up, take the trouble of reading his original piece and the clarification. Both are a slap on the face of Pakistan and what it has come to stand for. Recommend

  • bangKal

    flawed or not, who cares. muslims have two countries of their own in the sub-continent, pak &ampRecommend

  • David

    @whynoww Wow.. Thanks for enlightening. You seems to be attending too much of LeT classes.Recommend

  • David

    Awesome and logical. Kudos to the author.Recommend

  • bric bimaru

    Historically, sub-continent was never one nation. so any multi-nation theory is valid. that’s naturalRecommend

  • whynoww

    u r too close to colonel prohit of RSSRecommend

  • abhi

    @ Hassan

    Point 1 and 2 make sense but rest are not correct.

    3) Calling Muslim disfranchised is wrong as subcontinent has been ruled by Muslims most of the time.

    4) Pakistan’s failures are not because it didn’t follow Jinnah’s path but the failures are because it followed Jinnah’s path literally. Jinnah was responsible for many things

    5) Jinnah claimed that Muslims in India have more things in common with Arabs and Central Asians than with their neighbors. Bangladesh proved that it was not the case. It turned out that even east Pakistani Muslims have not much in common with west Pakistanis.