Prof Ram Puniyani
ONE of South Asia’s greatest tragedies has been the emergence of the ‘two-nation theory’, which opposed the anti-colonial Indian national movement. It was a great help to British colonialists to rule over this vast land. It led to the formation of Pakistan on the basis of a Muslim majority (Islam) and the remaining part, India, as a secular state with a large Muslim population. These Muslims, who by force of circumstances or by choice, chose to stay here in India. It also led to a large migration of Pakistani Hindus to India and many Muslims to Pakistan; the suffering was horrific.
Now, over seven decades after the tragedy, we see the plight of Pakistan sliding down the scale of democracy, social well-being and progress. India, which began well and strove on the path of pluralism and development, is witnessing a resurgence of the ‘two-nation theory’ in the form of strengthening the communal forces, which are sharpening their politics to achieve a Hindu rashtra (nation). In his book on Partition, Baba Saheb Ambedkar warned that the formation of Pakistan would be the worst tragedy as it could pave the way for a Hindu Raj in India. How true he was! The attempts of Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Azad and Congress to prevent the tragedy failed to counter the British policy of ‘divide and rule’, greatly assisted by the ideology and politics of communal forces of that time; the Muslim League on one hand and the Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.
The Partition debate and the underlying two-nation theory keep surfacing time and again in both countries. Sectarian nationalists, Muslim and Hindu both, keep blaming each other for the tragedy. They undermine the deep roots of tragedy in the declining sections of society, the feudal forces, assisted by the clergy on both sides. As both these sectarian streams were on the forefront of spreading hate, against the ‘other’ community, the communal violence went on intensifying and leaders like Gandhi and Maulana Azad could not prevent the ensuing ghastly events.
While each communal stream, Hindu and Muslim, has its own versions of the event, the holistic picture can be unearthed by seeing the picture through the movement and ideology of the emerging Indian nationalism and its opposition by the declining sections of landlords and clergy on both sides.
This debate has again raised its head with Pakistan’s General Asim Munir. While addressing the Overseas Pakistani Convention in Islamabad, in the presence of top political leaders of the country, he eulogised the “two-nation theory”. He went on to pay tributes to the people who worked for the formation of Pakistan. Seeing one side of the picture, he stated, “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, ambitions are different — that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations; we are not one nation.”
This is in contrast to the understanding, particularly of Gandhi and Nehru, who saw the two major communities and other smaller religious communities as interacting with each other and creating a unique syncretic culture where each component has contributed to the emergence of celebratory Indian culture. Common celebration of festivals at the social level and contributions of people to all aspects of Indian culture by people of diverse religions, the unique Bhakti and Sufi traditions being the highest form of these interactions. Gandhi summed it up in his unique, Ishwar Allah Tero Naam, and Nehru articulated it as Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb.
The two-nation theory was not a sudden articulation. As the national movement started emerging from amongst the sections of society associated with modern education, industries, and communication, Indian nationalism towered over all other fissiparous ideologies. As pointed out, the other sections not associated with it and hanging on to the feudal and pre-modern values threw up the Muslim League on one side and the Hindu Mahasabha on the other. They were exclusionist and veered around propagating the caste and gender hierarchy, standing opposed to education for Dalits and women.
The British subtly supported these trends as they were helpful to them in suppressing the national movement. One talked of Islamic nation and the other of the Hindu nation. Immediately after the formation of the Indian National Congress, the opposition to this came up in the form of the feudal class of Rajas and Nawabs pledging their loyalty to British rulers. Gradually, these parallel streams emerged and the Muslim League was formed in 1906. This was encouraged by the British. On the other side, the Punjab Hindu Sabha came up in 1909, the Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and the RSS in 1925. The latter criticised Gandhi to the hilt. Formally, the two-nation theory was articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and that became the guiding light of Hindu nationalism. Muslim nationalism started talking of Pakistan by 1930 and was strongly articulated in 1940 by MA Jinnah in 1940.
Today, RSS ideologues (BJP leaders and RSS leader, Ram Madhav: Decoding General, IE 19 April 2025) are presenting as if the ‘two-nation theory’ was only the making of Muslims through the Muslim League. They underplayed the great role of Allah Baksh, Maulana Azad, and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, who opposed the demand for Pakistan. Just after 25 years of its existence, Pakistan broke into two, with its eastern part becoming Bangladesh. That was the end of the “two-nation theory.” Their abysmal condition is obvious today.
While in India, Hindu nationalism was quietly being nurtured silently, its first dangerous manifestation came when RSS-trained Godse put three bullets in the bare chest of the Father of the Nation. Its further starkly visible form came up in the last years of the 1980s and early 90s with the most divisive campaign for demolishing the Babri Masjid.
_____________
Ram Puniyani is an eminent author, activist and a former professor at IIT Mumbai. The views expressed here are personal and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them.
