Does the creation of Bangladesh prove the two-nation theory wrong?

Published: October 14, 2016

Those who claim that the two-nation theory has proven to be a failure cite the creation of Bangladesh as an example. PHOTO: PINTEREST.

This article is not a “defence” or repudiation of the two-nation theory (TNT). Rather it tries to critically evaluate the argument that the creation of Bangladesh in fact proved that the two-nation theory was not valid. Those who claim that the two-nation theory has proven to be a failure cite the creation of Bangladesh as an example. It is claimed that ethnic nationalism trumped religion and therefore the two-nation theory has proven to be a failure. I do not intend to prove that the two-nation theory is wrong or right but just evaluate it with reference to the creation of Bangladesh.

Frankly speaking, I am not a history expert and do not claim any command on minute details of partition and its various narratives. However, as a student of political thought and comparative politics, I have often been fascinated by the two-nation theory. Now for someone who calls himself a “Pakistani Indian”, it may appear that I will be a staunch opponent of the “two-nation” theory. The way, it is often interpreted is that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations who would have found it impossible to live together and therefore Muslims, who were the minority at that time, would need a separate politically autonomous state. I do oppose this version and I think that it is highly debatable. If being a Muslim is the criteria of a separate state then why stop at India? Why not also include all the Muslims of the world and merge them into one nation state?

We know such a thing is not possible and is in fact laughable. The two-nation theory would start making sense if only we understand the fleeting concept of identity. We are not just Muslims, but also have ethno linguistic identities which at times may be competing with each other and at times complimenting each other. Everything revolves around a complex phenomenon known as identity and in politics that is often the most important factor in mobilisation. Identity itself may be constructed or at times may simply be something you are born with. Moreover, identity may be dormant and can become active. It is when an identity becomes active that political expression follows.

How a particular identity becomes active often depends on the perceived benefits as well as drawbacks associated with it. It also becomes active, if there is a perception that you are being victimised on the basis of that particular identity. Once an identity is activated, it can form various political expressions which range from political mobilisation to asking for greater rights, to outright demands for a separate nation state. What determines the exact form of political expression depends on many things. For example, gender identity can form a political expression but it is not possible (at least, it has not happened) for women to demand a separate country! Demands for equal pay and improved civil rights are expressed largely through civil society and do not aim to change the geographical and administrative structure of a particular country.

On the other hand, ethnic identity can form various political expressions ranging from the formation of political parties on ethnic lines, to demands for a separate state. Ethnic nationalists can demand a separate state particularly when an ethnicity views that it is possible to secede and the secession will lead to a better standard of living and greater rights. The demand for a separate nation state is also hugely dependent on actual geographical dispersion of the population belonging to that ethnicity. If there are geographical concentrations then the demand for secession is more likely compared to a situation where the ethnicity is evenly dispersed all over the country.

Religion, like ethnicity, is an identity though compared to ethnic identity is less “rigid”. It is generally said that religion is merely set of beliefs, but at least in political literature, it has always been considered more than that. In fact, some have gone to the extent of calling religion of birth a form of ethnic identity. Yes, theoretically speaking, it could be changed, but religious identity is powerful, particularly in circumstances where discrimination or perceived discrimination is conducted on religious lines.

Put simply religion can also be an effective political identity, provided certain conditions are there. And like other identities, it can form a political expression of demanding a separate state.

The demand for Pakistan (whether we consider it as an actual demand or a bargaining ploy by Jinnah) was a consequence of an activated political identity. There were incidences which activated the Muslim identity and the Congress is equally responsible for that, as much as the Muslim elites are.

Like ethnicity, religion can be a politically potent factor leading to possible demands of a nation state. In Pakistan’s case Muslims were also concentrated in two geographical zones (present day Pakistan and Bangladesh). While a substantial number was also dispersed all over the country there is no denying of the fact that areas forming West Pakistan (Present day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were Muslim majority areas.

It is true that ethnic identity, on its own, is often a stronger motivating factor though at the time of independence there were no mass movements demanding independence on ethnic lines. In fact, if demand for a nation state is only justified on ethnic lines then India itself should have been divided into many parts as there are so many languages spoken there.

Moreover, the term “partition” is misleading because India has rarely been politically a single unit. Throughout its history, there was a loose geographical continuity which has always enabled this land to be called India. Within this geographical unit, there have been various political configurations. The right question is not whether there should have been a “partition” but rather whether the areas coming under present day Pakistan and Bangladesh should have joined Indian federation (as visualised by Congress) or not.

So there were in reality various identities emerging out of the Indian subcontinent. There was a broader Indian identity, religious identities, and ethnic linguistic identities. In other words there have always been nations within a nation. And then there is a concept of hybrid identity. It is not important for many to be just Muslims; relatively they want their religious freedom as well as their ethnic and cultural independence. So I may be Muslim but at the same time I would prefer that my Punjabi cultural freedom is also safeguarded.

When Bengali and Sindhi Muslims voted for Pakistan (after all let’s not forget that these two provinces clearly voted for Pakistan), the idea was not merely preservation of their religious freedom but a combination of both religious as well ethnic/cultural freedoms. Thus when Bengali Muslims (who were also geographically concentrated) voted for the creation of Pakistan, it was also for the preservation of their Bengali identity along with religious identity.

The choice was to join the Indian federation or join Pakistan. Those who voted for Pakistan joined Pakistan with the view that perhaps their ethnic and cultural freedom would be better safeguarded in Pakistan rather than India.

The reason why Bangladesh came into being is less to do with fallacy of the two-nation theory and more with how actually West Pakistan treated East Pakistanis. It is not the idea itself but the way Pakistan tried to over centralise and negate Bengali culture and their ethnic identity. Pakistan superimposed Urdu over Bengali and adopted a policy of sustained repression. Bengalis seceded mainly because of the way we treated them. The discrimination activated the Bengali nationalism and led to secession. But once again it was the hybrid identity of both Islam and Bengali ethnicity which dictated the choice of independence rather than merger with India. What had earlier prompted them to opt for Pakistan, once again led them to become an independent state.

The two-nation theory would have been discarded IF Bengalis had opted to join India in 1971 rather than opting for an independent state.

Personally, I think history is yet to give its verdict about the two-nation theory. We cannot just say that just because Bangladesh came into being therefore it is wrong.


Raza Habib Raja

The author is a recent Cornell graduate and currently pursuing his PhD in political science at Maxwell School, Syracuse University. He has also worked for a leading development finance institution in Pakistan. He is a freelance journalist whose works have been published at Huffington Post, Dawn (Pakistan), Express Tribune (Pakistan) and Pak Tea House. He tweets @razaraja (

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

  • vinsin

    People those who fought, voted and created Pakistan never moved, they stayed in India. Subcontinent Muslims during British period were no way minorities. Dalits (15%), Sikhs(2%), Jains (0.5%), Christians (2.5%), Tribals (10%), OBC (22.5%) UC (22.5%) etc were minorities. Partition was between Muslims and non-Muslims. Existence of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir Valley unrest support TNT. India was united culturally throughout history not politically, Battle of Rajasthan proves that.
    Similarly Bengali were majority in pre 1971 Pakistan.Recommend

  • Vish

    70 years and still stuck on the same record. Get over it. Move on.Recommend

  • Bairooni Haath

    No the creation of Bangladesh does not mean that the two nation theory is wrong, it also means that Baluchistan should be separated from Pakistan as they are a different nation.Recommend

  • madhu

    it would be better to create a big confederation of all south asian states- 1.6 billion people- with pakistan, bangladesh and india ruling as a troika- the capital can shift between the three countries every year- or one new capital built in the center— this way all the people can travel all over the union- work anywhere- and have a suitable name united states of south asia – ussa- or something acceptable to all- the kashmir problem will disappear- because all the entities will have their own state – why are we fighting like cats and dogs- let us live in peace – in a confederation – there will be about 600 million muslims- enough to form a majority party and rule as a PM- think friends- no one will dominate any one- china , japan , usa all can be our friends- no defence budget- whom to fight???- all the money saved can be spent on social causes like education and employment generating schemes- we should have a referendum on this subject all over south asiaRecommend

  • BlackHat

    All these convoluted arguments might have been valid many centuries ago. In the 21st century, with the world shrinking rapidly, it is sheer madness to even consider theories like TNT. It is now time to abandon such nonsense.

    Not just Bangladesh, existence of 22 Arab countries and scorers of Christian and Buddhist countries proves that a nation can not be built on the basis of religion alone.

    I never tire of reiterating that Partition of India was never the wish of the people of the subcontinent, both Muslim and non-Muslim. It was the Anglo-American agenda for the Cold War – to secure their Middle Eastern oil interests and to prevent the Soviets from reaching the Indian Ocean. If Indian National Congress had agreed to join the American led alliance and offered bases and allowed military presence on the Indian soil, India would not have been partitioned. Needless to remind you that India became non-aligned and Pakistan went on to join CENTO, SEATO, fought the Soviets and lately fought the War on Terror (though half-heartedly).

    Whatever be the arguments, the irony is that the man who created the country, neither his ancestors nor his descendants were nationals of the country. In his family tree, only he belonged to a different nation. Talk about identity!Recommend

  • goggi (Lahore)

    Lahori By Birth, Muslim By Chance, Pakistani By Nationality, Hindustani By Soul!Recommend

  • Arsha

    It’s shameful if we believe in such a divisive theory. Before being of any religion we are humans first. I cannot believe in anything which makes such a generalization about millions of people not being able to coexist. That’s undermining humanity and undermining the Creator. I would rather that we try to make this theory irrelevant.Recommend

  • Anoop

    So a Malayalee Muslim who knows no other language than Malayalam and who is used to eating Rice everyday and wears lungi belongs to a separate nation than his neighbors who do the exact same thing. TNT says that he feels at home living with a Punjabi or a Bengali Muslim, than another Malayalee.

    Well, I am a supporter of TNT, but a slightly modified theory. Muslims are a separate nation because its hard for them to live with Hindus or any other community peacefully. Today South Asia contains 37% Muslim population. Imagine what a mess it would have been. There would be 2 laws – one for Muslims and another for the Rest. There would be demand for special treatment in every sector! Reservations in education, jobs. Freebies would be demanded! We already see it in play in many states where Muslim numbers are high. By 2050, Muslims in South Asia exceed the number of Hindus.

    We see such things all over the world, especially in European countries where Muslim numbers are increasing. In UK, there are Sharia enforcers roaming the streets!

    Because of TNT and Nehru’s masterstroke, Muslims were divided into 3 equal parts and they now think it was a good thing! Hindus and other indigenous nations of India got their own country, where they can practice secularism. Hindus got their nation back. All thanks to Jinnah and his theory.

    Today nobody debates the founding principles of India because it is clear as day what it was – Secular, Democratic, Republic with a strong center. Exactly how Nehru imagined it to be. But, you often see articles like “What did Jinnah want?”, “Is this Jinnah’s Pakistan?”, “What is TNT?”, “Is TNT Relevant?”

    Jinnah’s ideas were so confusing and he said so many contrasting things and there was so much mismatch with what he said and what he did, such things are still debated today.

    As MJ Akbar said: “Pakistanis are stronger than the idea of Pakistan; the idea of India is stronger than Indians”.Recommend

  • Ram Dargad

    The real question is, was TNT right at the time of independence. Has it helped Muslims, in the long run.
    In an optimistic scenario, without partition, India would have been even more secular, weakening religious fundamentalists, empowering Minorities, (both Muslims & Hindus in various states). South Asia, (particularly East Bengal), would have been in a far better economical condition than what they are. North West of the country (Pakistan) would not have been in such a mess, no ‘war on terror’ would be required. Kashmir & Balochistan would have been peaceful, without any wars over Kashmir or secession of East Bengal. Russians would not have faced Taliban backed by US, Afghanistan would have been like any central Asian nation. Chinese would have hesitated before annexing Aksai Chin part of Kashmir.
    Having come so far, there is no possibility of undoing it. Maybe some day SAARC will be a confederation like EU of many states, with or without Pakistan. InshallahRecommend

  • Purna Tripathy

    This theory has more or less been discussed for a very long time in India. if religion in itself was such a strong force why are there so many Arab countries, where islam was borne.Recommend

  • Allah Hafiz

    Two Nation theory is still intact..thats why may be brave pakistani army raped 3 lakh bangladeshis and killed 30 million of them..Recommend

  • Zac

    The apologist tone of this piece is a bit mind boggling. A leftist in Pakistan is ashamed of being a Muslim and a Pakistani. Bengal was NOT partitioned BY MUSLIMS in 1947. It was partitioned by a SINGLE HINDU VOTE. Ask the Hindus why they wanted to partitioned Bengal in 1947 and you will realize that the two-nation theory is championed by Hindus.Recommend

  • Zac

    The apologist tone of this piece is a bit mind boggling. A leftist in Pakistan is ashamed of being a Muslim and a Pakistani. Bengal was NOT partitioned BY MUSLIMS in 1947. It was partitioned by a SINGLE HINDU VOTE. Ask the Hindus why they wanted to partition Bengal in 1947 and you will realize that the two-nation theory is championed by Hindus.Recommend

  • Parvez

    If you want to read something both interesting and educational on this subject suggest you read an article on this by Nadeem F. Paracha in DAWN dated 9th Oct. ’16.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Wow. This man lives in the west, calls himself a Pakistani Indian and simultaneously defends the division of India on the basis of Islamic fascism. He fails to mention that Bangladesh was bigger in population and better educated when it separated from its fascist, racist oppressors. General Tikka khan famously warned that the Pak army would rape bangla women to change their genes. The current Pakistan is a rump state, a banana state, selling terrorism and nuclear blackmail as its last significant exports. Just read Pakistani newspapers. And dont get me started on the shoddy writing from a “phd” candidate. What a complete tragedy of humanity, this Pakistan. With this state of confusion of the so-called Pakistani educated class, there is no doubt the country will be relegated to the dustbin of history.Recommend

  • Linux Novice

    Baluch also want to protect their national identity which is now oppressed by occupying Pak Army. Recommend

  • Lalit

    One of the worst defence of TNT.Recommend

  • Historian

    TNT is based on religious community. The vast majority of the former British India’s Muslims live outside India today (and Kashmiris want out, too). Whether the Muslims live in one state or many is not the issue. Nation and state are not the same thing. Ask any political scientist.Recommend

  • Ajay

    Today India has population of Muslims which is equal to that in Pakistan and third largest in the whole World. Given a choice, how many will like to relocate to Pakistan now? I think hardly anyone. Is it not a proof that all the extreme agony, torture and misery faced by innocent people during partition was futile and the concept of teligion based nation was a medieval, outdated concept? I hope Editor publishes it and I recieve some enlightened comments!!!Recommend

  • shaan

    Does Pakistan belongs to Mars?Recommend

  • Fahim

    Partition of 1947 or 1971 indicates that the two identities (by religion, tribes or language) having different paths and interests can’t be bound by force for long unless one is fool. We have example of south India, Karachi, California and Saraiki belt as examplesRecommend

  • Fahim

    I hope Hindustan will love you when you would have been found eating beef steakRecommend

  • Alann

    It’s funny, isn’t it? Every 6 months, Every year, there is an article questioning partition and Pakistan’s existence on multiple Pakistani news portals.Recommend

  • Victory

    Seems jingoistic and is laden with insults.Recommend

  • Victory

    Apparently, it’s skip on other minorities has mental fascination with Muslims.Recommend

  • RHR

    It is better to read the article first and till the end before coming up with a diatribe. Article does not defend TNT but tries to evaluate the claim that creation of Bangladesh has proven it wrong.
    The article also clearly states that Pakistan mistreated Bengalis which led to break up of Pakistan. Now whether Pakistan is a banana state is another debate and nothing to do with this articleRecommend

  • Purna Triputhy

    Arabs and Indians are two different cultures.Recommend

  • Sa

    No India does.Recommend

  • Mango

    Seems biased and skewed, cherry picked hyperbole logic and ignorant on India’s failure as a nation.Recommend

  • RHR

    Ok judging form the comments of some Indians, it seems clear that they have not read the article but started to comment after seeing the words TNT or two nation theory. This article does not even defend TNT bur evaluates the claim whether Bangladesh’s creation proves it wrong. I argue that Bangladesh became separate because of the way Bengalis were mistreated and not due to TNT.
    Anyways, it is better to read and then commentRecommend

  • Haresh

    Quantitative vs hate drivel nonsense. i chose PHD candidate over someone who’s greatest point “Just read Pakistani newspaper” which isn’t say much.Recommend

  • Haresh

    You’re argument doesn’t make most sense, mostly it’s personal driven with Hindu bias. Apparently, Muslims would only demand reservation with no explanation but personal justification. The only thing meaningful, I can get from delusional hate driven post is how delusional Hindu community is on their own criticism.Recommend

  • Haresh

    Mass migration wasn’t noted by the British. Are we’re trying to re-write history?Recommend

  • Haresh

    So the tone should be antagonistic? Talk about biased.Recommend

  • Haresh

    Good point.Recommend

  • Priya Patel

    A few people on street in London makes it entire UK? Please. I guess we should ignore the Hindu burning churches and Dalits in the name of god and call them peaceful? Sure, lol. I assume dalits, christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jain don’t need freebies either? The fact your post is rather crass, vulgar and generalising is already sick. I don’t know why mods allow comments like this come though.Recommend

  • Priya Patel

    *community in IndiaRecommend

  • Johnny

    Not simple question when you have waiver personal relationship and family. False dichotomy.Recommend

  • Zen

    Talking about secularism while hiding undertones of theocracy, missing details and using hysterical arguments like Sharia enforces in the UK. Personal admission is validated is considered factual argument, How odd. Missing violence on Christians and Sikh community seems lacking. Of course like most poster you can hide behind polemics.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    This is the funniest thing I have read, how brainwashed our kids in India. Half of truths and hypocrisy galore. At one point this man gloating about Hindus being livable with other communities, apparently skipping on attack on churches. Magically, the entire Muslim community is below poverty line, rich people like Yousaf Ali not existing. There’s oddly contradiction of Dalits, Jatts and other unprivileged communities not existing. Of course, this is freebies, apparently this is moral outlook of Hindus when it comes charitable work. Now with this fundamentalist mindset with marginalising on basis of religion how is India secular. One would wonder how on earth this is secular, when someone reeks of theocracy. I have heard of Pakistanis moving back home, for me I haven’t heard the same for Indians.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    I think hardly anyone? That was be an assumption, not an answer. A better question, would be how many would like another partition in India away from Hindu-centric government? Many would.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Put your argument in perspective, cheap insults means you don’t really have point as opposed to thorough argument. If Pakistan is this bad, how would India tout itself? Corrupt, poor,’s a few ques.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    No idea, i neither support or oppose either. Are Indians, arabs? No. So why compare?Recommend

  • Raj UK

    And atrocities in Kashmir and immunity of Indian army. If the Indian needs protection, what’s the point of the army then? Especially when they’re scared of terrorists. Sympathy of Jawans is laughable and contradictory.Recommend

  • Muhammad Zeshan Akram

    I personally respect your views Ajay, but unfortunately in both separated wings of subcontinents today, no minority (Hindus and Muslims) is protected practically by law; this reluctantly validates the narrative of separate nations based on religion, ethnicity etc.Recommend

  • Western Scholar

    I’m surprised in Pakistan Newspaper, there’s very little Pakistanis. I can understand why though, but Mods need to start censoring, it’s leading to abusive from desperate Hinduvta trolls.

    Correct me, if I’m wrong. TNT says dividing communities into communal lines, doesn’t specifically mention geography though. I suppose Malayalee never migrated outside their community then?

    I’m sure Christian community would thrilled at this, consider large surplus of Hindus are converting to their faith. Despite unprivileged class of Hindu such as Dalits who live on these freebies aren’t existing in head. Maybe the largest community under poverty are Hindu should ring few.

    I have never heard of separation of laws, if 7-8 roaming streets in the London is the ENTIRE UK and Muslim community, I wonder about your intelligence here?

    So Christians, Buddhists, Baha’i, Jews need not apply because their not indigenous? How on earth is this secular?

    Jinnah’s confusing is subjective, especially when you’re vague here.

    Pakistanis are better off than Indians? No idea why this quoted on TNT, since Indians can be annotated with any religions.Recommend

  • Borough

    Is Bangladesh not predominate muslim country? I don’t see the logic here.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    I forget do hindus not fight with anyone? You could have real point instead of hiding behind pseudo-intellectual and populist hinduvta approach. I guess Statues aren’t talking eh?Recommend

  • Monkey God

    I almost chocked when you thought your insult ridden post has more merits than PHD candidate. Ignorance, polemics and deniability. 3 qualities of Hindu troll.

    Ignore India, insert Pakistan criticism and when refuted play dumb and try again.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    I’m sure Christians would be happy, now RSS and VHP would have bigger free pass to attack churches. No mention of common law of beef ban being applicable to all religious, despite grunts of secularism. Let’s see if his response is subjective or objective?Recommend

  • M.Saeed

    Two nation theory as explained by Quaid to the British simply stated that, if a large portion of population worshipped cow while a second large portion devoured it especially on their religious festival, they cannot be taken as one nation and must be divided for peace.
    Now, Bangladesh was separated on linguistic basis but still, its large population of Hindu population migrated to India on their natural instinct. There were 27% Hindus there, which are now only 9% left.Recommend

  • Bhavin

    Unfortunately, in the UK there’s no such but muslims do make the largest graduates after whites.Recommend

  • Salim Alvi

    REgal Legions are political construct. Dharma or spirituality is native and organic. Romans created first legion after hijacking Abrahamic Jewish theology. They enticed the cowards, crooks and criminals among the natives by offering plum darbari posts and share of loot of natives. Jesus whom they used as prophet, was persecuted by Romans a century back. Low consciousness this legion cultivated by imbibing hate for others who had not joined their legion and license to loot them and enslave them, created a fanatic cannon fodder and was used effectively to expand their empire In Europe by brutalizing the native Pagans (meant civil in old Latin). These Europen converts who lost their native roots, ancestral history went on spreading brutalization al over the world. Slavery, colonization and even today’s terrorism are different strains of this original WMD virus. Koresh and Ummaid perfected this Roman technique by giving license to converts rape and kill the native Kufr. Progeny of these native converts hate everything native – language, culture, ancestral history. Christianity is disappearing tin the West but Anglos are promoting Islam in the ME & subcontinent. They used Islam to destroy Soviets and to contain progress of India. In last 20 years they used Islam as WMD to lynch the progressive among the Arabs. Since Christianity is disappearing in the west, Church is focusing on conversions in Asia, especially India and Nepal. Common enemy of the natives of the world is these legions. They are tools for en-mass enslavement. If Dharma is gone from India then it will be barren barbaric land and killing fields of AfPak, Iraq, Syria, Yemen.. or at best utterly depressed and in-confident banana republics of south-central Americas.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    A Hinduvta troll using a muslim username delusional crazed fantasies, suggesting all religions are evil with except Dharma. Thanks for proving people here are trolling. I’m not posting now, until Tribune starts censoring trolls.Recommend

  • Salim Alvi

    You may not be a Muslim since you do not have Bedouinized Semitic name. But who am I to label you?

    Even Maulwis are ignorant by design. In the very beginning of Koran, at the top, are three letters, alif (A), lam (L) and mim (M). Can you oryour Maulwi explain what these three letters mean?’ You might say that this was a secret which Allah had kept to himself. Then please tell me when God has revealed the entire Koran for the benefit of mankind, as the you claim, it is very strange that he has kept its very heading a secret. No. It is not so. They signify. Alif, lam and mim are nothing but alif (A), wao (O) and mim (M), that is, AOM or OM.

    In Arabic grammar L is pronounced O when it falls between a vowel and a consonant, as in the names Shamsuddin, which is written Shamsaldin, or Nizamuddin, which is written Nizamaldin. The letter lam (L) becomes silent and gives the sound of the Arabic letter pesh (O or U). Therefore ALM is no secret; it is clearly and unambiguously OM and nothing but OM. It is Kufra, heretical or a sin, to blame God for keeping it a secret.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Phd from a third rate university, paid for by the writers parents, doesn’t count. Look up who this guy is, before defending him.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Yes, I definitely recommend you read it.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Nothing cheap about a countr with less forex reserves than Bangladesh, a falling foreign investment rate, constitutionally defined financial bankruptcy, a revolving debt that will make your head spin, and a finance minister who falsely touts an “IMF award” purchased from a third rate publication.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Refute one thing I said with facts instead of desperately throwing words at me. Tell me one way in which Pakistan shows it culture or industry to the world. Besides a fat army eating the people’s sandwich, and throwing empty nuclear and terrorist blackmail at the world, what else does Pakistan have. Pakistanis in the west pretend to be the dirty Indians Pakistani trolls talk about.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Sure, and why don’t you stop hiding behind your presumed Indian name and tell us patriotically about Pakistans achievements?Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Only Pakistanis and Muslim nawabs and their mullah Chamchas ate cows. Indian, Arab and Persian Muslims didnt eat cows before modern agrifarming made it affordable. I eat beef myself and don’t care for stupid dietary restrictions. Does that mean I can’t live with my vegetarian Hindu mother? This is the type of irrational uneducated argument that has turned Pakistan slowly into hell for its people. Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Bangladesh became a reality because religious affinity is not as strong as cultural and linguistic affinity. Your nawabs and jagirdars fed you the lie that religion was enough of a binding force so they could could continue looting people and sell their services to the British (Nehru was going to bring land reforms in India). Wake up and turn yourself into a secular state before you tear each other apart and your leaders have to sell your famous N assets for their retirement fund.Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    Why do you think Hindus in Pak and Bangladesh keep reducing in numbers while Muslims in India keep increasing in numbers? Could the reason for this genocide in Islamic countries have to do with the oppression of Hindus or the baby making and woman hating mullah funded by Saudi money who frown on women’s rights and contraception?Recommend

  • Chinmay Nagarkar

    No, it is a churning hell. That’s why Pak has a higher suicide rate than any of its neighbors and its people long to immigrate western countries. Just wAtch, Pakistani intellectuals and artists will immigrate to India in droves within the next 10 years. India will change its laws to accommodate them.Recommend

  • Sane

    Why you use fake name. Also tell how much you are paid for each comment.Recommend

  • Anoop

    Why don’t you go ahead and expose my pseudo intellectualism and cite one instance where Hindus occupied alien lands and converted the local population by force? I challenge you..
    I can cite several examples of Muslims doing the same. Just look at the Zoarastrians. We have seen how several holy temples have been desecrated in Islam’s name.Recommend

  • Anoop

    There are more Indians online than the entire population of Pakistan. We are democratic and read newspapers. Only in Pakistan reading other countries newspapers is seen as a bad thing.
    You don’t have to look far to see a Malayalee living and conversing with a non-Malayalee. Such things happen in India all the time. Jinnah’s TNT said that a Muslim is a different nation, regardless of his ethnicity and linguistic links and Muslims cannot live with Hindus and vice versa. Which is why I gave that example. India celebrated the diversity. How is what you said in support of TNT? How does a Malayalee migrating prove TNT was right? What are you trying to prove?
    Hindu culture has a 5000 year old history. It has dozens of Religions under its umbrella for thousands of years. All you can cite is a handful of communal incidences for a nation which is 1/6th of the Humanity. 1.3 Billion Indians. 1.4 Billion Muslims. In comparison, India as a nation is far more peaceful and tolerant than the latter group. Just take the last 50 years where all major events have been documented. Muslim world has been more volatile, more violent and far more intolerant of its minority communities. Wouldn’t you agree?
    You talk about Dalits, when a man from backward caste is the present Prime Minister. How bloody ironical.
    Can you explain why intolerant Indians and maniacal Hindus elected a Sikh, who form about 3% of our population as PM for 2 terms, meaning an entire decade?
    Secular is not discriminating with the existing populations and not to have any Religion specific laws;To treat every Indian citizen as equal. I want India to implement this to the spirit.Recommend

  • Anoop

    Dog meat is banned in banned in many states of US. Dog meat is consumed by many communities around the world, who have migrated to the US and have been staying in the US for many generations. This is because Dog is dear to Americans and they can’t see it being culled for meat or any other material purpose.
    This is very similar to India. Cows are very special. Cows are our Dogs. You don’t have to eat Beef to be a Muslim or a Christian. I dare you to quote from the Quran or Bible where it is mentioned its mandatory to eat Beef to be a Muslim or a Christian. Hence, there is no question of Secularism being at harm.
    Is this objective enough for you?
    Since, you are so concerned about fairness and Secularism, I’m sure you won’t have any problems in giving up Beef in your personal capacity. Recommend

  • Anoop

    In 5000 year history, India or any of its indigenous Religions has never attacked an alien territory and converted its population by the sword. You talk of some isolated incidents with such a large population, equivalent to 1/6th of the population.
    Take for instance you hinting I am pro-freebies with respect to Dalits, Jats. Where have I said that? Do you want me to digress and talk of how our Politicians give out freebies in return for votes? What a guy!
    Now, that I have clarified my anti-freebie stance, will you change my opinion of me and apologize? Of course you wont!
    Again, you accuse me of being against Secularism.
    . To say Religion is man made and hence subject to criticism, to say Science is the only truth, all Religions are faulty is perfectly alright. I don’t ascribe to Political Correctness, sorry.
    I am first and foremost in criticizing Hindus and our culture. Why should I it on these pages? I will do it when the time is right in my opinion.
    You have no solid point than accusing me of things.

  • Anoop

    Can you tell me why a Sikh was elected PM for 10 years if there is such entrenched intolerance against minorities in India?
    You talk of instances of intolerance, but fail to provide sufficient perspective. India is 1/6th of Humanity. Compared to any group of comparative size India does well.
    For example, 1.4 Billion Muslims vs 1.3 Billion Indians. Can you tell me any nation, regardless of size, which has elected a person from non-majority community to the highest office?
    When you have 1/6th of the population, all sorts of things happen. But, such large populations should be compared with other nations with comparable size. India is a beacon of peace and tolerance.

  • Haresh

    So you claim, but like I said who trust you?Recommend

  • Monkey God

    Passing buck? Usual conduct to runaway from argument and then derail the argument to another topic. Been there done that.
    Apparently, insults and namecalling is highest point of someone maturity. So far nothing of argument.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Oh look, someone skipped India again and again.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Refute, you missed India. The only thing out of your mouth is Pakistan which isn’t saying much either.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Says the person who avoided IndiaRecommend

  • Haresh

    No mention IndiaRecommend

  • Anoop

    In the first line you say I shouldn’t generalize about Muslims and do exactly that with Hindus when you talk about a few criminals burning Churches. I shouldn’t generalize about Muslims, but you can with Hindus?
    You assume right. No community should get freebies. You have judged me to be something and have assumed that I would be pro-freebies when I have not mentioned it anywhere. You are one smart girl!
    How judgmental! Go through my previous comments, lady. I am pro-Science and Rationalism and am the foremost critic of Indian regressive traditions. When talking about Muslims, I am brutal in my opinions. You have a problem of judging.Recommend

  • Haresh

    Someone’s avoiding criticism on India, really shouldn’t talk. Refute? what’s the point, you derailed the argument on Raj’s comment.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    My point still stands. Derailed the argument.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    Convincing coming from someone who dislikes Pakistan.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    Let’s try this, can you prove the writer paid for his PHd, I want evidence, picture of paychecks. If you can prove it, then I might agree. If not, anything you blurt is just a lie.Recommend

  • Monkey God

    Proof, provide us proof. Remember your opinion isn’t fact.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Sorry, bhai. We in the UK, have moved on from backward idealogy.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Haha, India is so much betterRecommend

  • Anoop

    “Apparently, Muslims would only demand reservation with no explanation but personal justification.”
    I don’t think you have read a lot of History. Or, any history for that matter. Jinnah wanted special privileges and reserved seats for Muslims in Parliament. Not just in Parliament, but in Administrative services and other Government jobs. Nehru and Congress refused. This drove Jinnah, whom Muslims voted for in the elections, to for Partition.
    I am not claiming Muslims will ask for special treatment. Its part of History! Please refrain from commenting on topics you haven’t read up on. Else, prove me wrong. This is the Internet, my friend! Nobody responds to names.
    Why should there be different laws for Indians?
    Please understand my points because saying I’m wrong. I don’t mind correcting you, but you guys hardly correct yourself and apologize for calling me names.
    If you think the instances I’ve citied is wrong, please feel free to correct me. Recommend

  • Haresh

    So everyone has hate Pakistan to be Indian? Please, go comment elsewhere.Recommend

  • Raj UK

    Just leave it. I’ve been accused of being Pakistani, despite not being one. Recommend

  • Monkey God

    Great argument, neither relevant on the topic nor does argue anything I said. Still waiting why you’re having muslim name and claiming to be hindu?Recommend

  • Anoop

    Indians and Arabs are Human Beings. We can compare.Recommend

  • Bav

    Is there any point refuting someone with facts when he doesn’t have any himself neither can stay on topic.Recommend

  • Normo

    Nice save, where is the India comment?Recommend

  • Normo

    Is this your “facts” now? Recommend

  • Normo

    Thanks for proving, you don’t have a point.Recommend

  • Normo

    Is there censor system? It’s pointless debating. It’s nice way to distract topics like he’s done about India but it’s not much merit.Recommend

  • Fez

    Refute me where you said anything factual?Recommend

  • Fez

    India is stated where?Recommend

  • Fez

    I’d take him.Recommend

  • Fez

    So you would, and?Recommend

  • Fez

    Sure, why don’t we accuse people of something we don’t agree with?Recommend

  • Fez

    Why do you think anyone believes you?Recommend