Essay two nation theory

Two nation theory 1. Din his famous book "Kitab-ul-Hind" as"The Hindu society maintained thispeculiar character over the centuries. The two societies, Hindus and Muslims,like two streams have sometimestouched but never merged, eachfollowing its separate course. Let usexamine each of them separately. H the messenger ofAllah. They have thousandsof gods. And they havecharaceristics of god. Political DifferencesThe political differences between the Hindus and Muslims have played animportant role in the evolution of Two Nation Theory.

This created another gap between Hindus and Muslims.

  • How Jinnah's ideology shapes Pakistan's identity.
  • How oppressed are Muslims in India? - Herald.
  • persuasive essay prompts grade 4.
  • what is the medicalisation thesis.

It claimed to represent allcommunities of India but oppressed all Muslim ideas and supported the Hindu iii Partition of BengalIn , the partition of Bengal ensured a number of political benefits for theMuslims, but the Hindus launched an agitation against the partition and partitiowas annulled in By all canons of international law we are a nation.

ConclusionThe Muslims realized thatthey would lose their religious andcultural identity if they remained a partof British India. They also able tounderstand the above mentioneddifferences between them and hencedemanded a separate homeland onthe ground where they freely practicedtheir religion in accordance with Quranand Sunnah and Islamic teachings.

Two Nation Theory

They demanded a piece of land wheretheir property and life would be safeguarded and secure. You just clipped your first slide! Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later. It is speculated that the relationship between Jinnah and viceroy and British senior officials was most cordial.

It is speculated that during this period Britain sounded off Jinnah on bases in northwest India to which Jinnah had no problems and readily agreed but also cautioned that he was a minor player who could not gurantee such a stance in an independent India. It was also known that once news of his illness is made public, Congress will play waiting game to see him dead than decide.

It is speculated that when Jinnah came to know that Liaqat Ali Khan knew about his illness and had tried to sell this information to Bhulabhai Desai he was so angry and upset with Liaqat that he did not speak to him for a long time. Reviewed here. A paper whose full text can be found here. Ninety years of loyalism and too much of constitutionalism had however made the Muslims of slow in taking the initiative and too much obsessed with consequences of every situation. This attitude was excellent as long as the British were the rulers, but not for a crisis situation, in which geography, time and space, alignment of communications and weather temporarily favoured Pakistan, in case initiative and boldness was exercised and simple but audacious plans were executed in the shortest possible time!

Today, it is fashionable to blame the Indians, Mountbatten, Gracey etc as far as the War is concerned. A dispassionate study of the events of clearly proves that victory was closer in than ever again as far as the Pakistan Army was concerned. Of course, nation states may come and go and even civilizational boundaries can and do change; Tunisia and Libya used to be pretty Roman and now they are pretty Arab. Shit happens. One would not be likely to lose much money betting on Xinjiang being very Chinese for centuries to come.

Han migration alone will take care of that. But still, there is a civilizational and cultural unity of India and that is not such a bad basis for a nation-state… It is certainly better than many other UN member nations have these days hint hint. India is one of the few nations of the world with a continuity of civilization and an ancient conception of nationhood. In its religious, civilizational, cultural and linguistic continuity, it truly stands alone.

This continuity was fostered by its unique geography and its resilient religious traditions. Unlike any other country on the planet, it retained these traditions despite both Islamic and Christian conquest, when most countries lost theirs and were completely converted when losing to even one of these crusading systems.

The Persians fell, the civilizations of Mesopotamia and Babylon were lost, the Celtic religion largely vanished, and the mighty Aztecs were vanquished, destroyed and completely Christianized. Yet Bharata stands. It stands in our stories, our languages, our pluralism and our unity.

Found what you're looking for?

And as long as we remember these stories, keep our languages and worship the sacred land of our ancestors, Bharata will stand. It is only if we forget these truths that Bharata will cease to be.

  • security threats india essay?
  • Modern-day India reaffirms Quaid-e-Azam’s Two-Nation theory.
  • How Jinnah's ideology shapes Pakistan's identity - BBC News.

That is precisely why the British tried to hard to make us forget them. You are excluding Islamic contributions and Indian Muslims from your definition This essay is about finding the historic roots of the Indian civilization and defining who we are as people and as a nation. We have had many migrants and invaders. While Islam has contributed to the Indian civilization, our roots are much older than when Prophet Mohammad first appeared in Arabia in the 6th century AD, so our civilization cannot be defined by Islam.

All of them added their contributions to our civilization as we did to theirs. The Mughal Empire helped in our political re-unification. But none of them define who we are. We had the great Chinese civilization towards the north and the Persian civilization towards our west. Each of them influenced us as we influenced them.

But because the Chinese came under Buddhist influence from India does not mean that they cease to be the Chinese civilization, an entity with a distinct cultural flavor and history from India. Similarly, the Persians and the Turks came in many waves and contributed to Indian culture, even as we did to theirs. This does not mean that our civilization suddenly became Persian or Turkish. Some of these people settled in India, some of them brought a new religion called Islam and converted some of the existing people.

Two Nation Theory free essay sample - New York Essays

All those who ultimately accept India as their homeland are accepted as Indians, for we have been a welcoming land. It would be a strange case indeed if conversion to Islam led people to deny the roots of their civilization. Do the Persians cease to be Persians, now that they are Muslims? Islam does not define nationhood. If it did, the entire region from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan would be one country. Iran and Iraq would be one large Islamic country, rather than separate entities based on Persian and Babylonian civilizational roots.

Indonesia and Malaysia would be one country. There is no reason that Muslim Indians feel any differently unless led by the creation of fear or sustained demagoguery to believe otherwise. An awful lot can be said about the India-Pakistan conflict and what is said is heavily dependent on how the writer sees the world and what he or she wants it to become. I thought it would be a good idea to just step back a little from the necessarily and correctly petty tactical maneuvers behind the talks and their cancellation and look at the somewhat scary big picture and then try to see what the possible futures look like.

The last section is my personal obsession and can be skipped. So here goes:. Kashmir is a disputed region that is claimed by both India and Pakistan. Without going into the details of whose claims are how good and what the UN resolutions really say, let us note one fact: Pakistan wants to change the status quo in Kashmir. India pays lip-service to the notion that it wants the Pakistani part of Kashmir, but in practice India looks like it will go along with keeping the status quo.

In this sense the positions are not symmetrical. Pakistan has tried various things to change the status quo. When India was partitioned, the princely ruler of Kashmir dithered about his choice whether to join India or Pakistan. After the tribal lashkars were forced back, regular army units joined the fight and both sides fought to a standstill by and then agreed to take the issue to the UN. Neither side did what the UN resolutions demanded details vary depending on whom you ask.

In the war, India defeated our forces in East Pakistan but nothing much changed on the Western front. The status quo in Kashmir remained more or less the way it was before the war though definitions and fine details of the boundary changed a little and diplomats argue forever about how many angels now dance on which pin. The problem is, how is that to be done? Since , there have been several rounds of peace talks and many proposals for a peace settlement in Kashmir.

Peaceniks and pragmatists on both sides have proposed that we could agree to keep the status quo on borders India keeps their Kashmir, we keep ours but should give substantial autonomy to each side and allow freer movement across the border,so obviating any need to adjust borders and fight wars. This sound good and I personally think it is the nearest thing to a doable deal but hardliners on both sides reject any such deal.

Some Indians think they detect a scheme to use autonomy and softer borders to prepare the ground for bigger future demands supported by an anti-Indian Kashmiri Muslim populace. More to the point, the security establishment feels that if peace comes, can disarmament and loss of domestic power and status be far behind? Pragmatic peaceniks know that the fears of hardliners are not unfounded. On peace being prelude to another attempt at taking Kashmir away, well, we would say that India is not run by children.

For the Hindutvadis, I would say this. On the Pakistani side, yes, I think the ideals of the Pakistan movement will be betrayed by such a deal. Maybe the whole partition thing was a bad idea. Why make it worse?

Learn more

It cannot be reversed, but at least it should not be made worse. Let it go. If we have peace and increased trust, we may be able to work it out in the future too. In any case, what is the alternative? China and India happen to be upstream. They have to make deals and manage. Deals are easier when you are at peace. This is not a valid fear at all. Guess who will get all the Amul franchises when peace breaks out?

How Two Nation Theory Is Destroying Pakistani Identity, Culture And Society?

Money can be made in many ways. You can make it in peace rather than war. Collect tolls. Distribute movies.