Talk:Two-nation theory/Archive 1

Terrible Article
S Seagal 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrible article that needs work, alot of work, its exceptionally biased and full of outright lies and violates Wikipedia NPOV.

It speaks less about the theory more about the criticism of the theory.

S Seagal 06:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this funny:"full of outright lies". Considering that the quotations from Pakistani leaders occupy a bulk of of the article, if your argument is applied to their quotes, then you are implying that they just lied! At least try to be careful with the choice of words to avoid sounding dubious.


 * As for the criticism, unless one has been living in a cave, modern developments on the theory suggests there has been a rethink of "ideological" aspects of the two nation theory by Pakistan govt. itself. Therefore the recent articles/editorials about the validity of the two nation theory itself has been questioned by several sources. Idleguy 09:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the critics of the two nation theory, I take it you dont believe in it?

Beside the point here is that this article is more of a stub than an article there should be sections for an against the two nation theory aswell as ofcourse talking about what the two nation thoery means.

I propose that we write about the theory, and then have three sections underneath, one for support for the two nation theory, the other critics like yourself, and lastly quotes regarding the two-nation theory. S Seagal 18:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ive added a section in support of the TNT and criticism of the TNT this way we can get both sides of the coin, that aside i removed some POV comments like 'Hindus and sikhs were all killed' and added a source that shows that pakistan has one of the largest hindu populations in the world that chose to remain in pakistan as oppose to go to india.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_hindu.html

This article needs to be expanded considerably. Its totally sub-standard


 * I agree! Seniorsag 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Im having problems showing the criticism and support sections instead they appear in the references section for some reason, if someone knows why perhaps they can fix that?

thanks S Seagal 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. This part of Pakistan's history sounds quite a lot like Zionism and the partition of Palestine. 41.243.98.189 15:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you are absolutely wrong about that. since Israel was created by european jewry in the lands of Palestine and not by Palestinian mizrahi or indigenous Jewish folks. Pakistan was created by muslim intellectuals with an overwhelming support of the muslim minority after a series of events that exposed the face of the hindu dominated congress and it was founded on lands not alien to the people who demanded it, even many muslims who migrated to Pakistan from India trace their origin to the lands of Pakistan or beyond in afghanistan but still they accounted for less than 10% of the population.

Comment
I have some problems with "overwhelming support of the muslim minority" since (according to my historical map) a majority of the Indian muslims chose to stay in India, but more non-muslims emigrated out of Pakistan than muslims imigrated to Pakistan. In fact, according to what I could read from the incompleate numbers, there were more muslims left in India than there was in Pakistan after the partition. If anyone have some reliable documentation with numbers, PLEASE give references (and quotes if possibly).

Secondly: One have to take East Pakistan (Bangladesh) separate from West Pakistan, West Pakistan was almost compleatly emptied of non-muslims while a large part of the non-muslims stayed in East Pakistan.

As I can read from the arguments(propaganda) that I have read from the debate preceeding the partition Pakistan was intended to be a muslim state with muslim (sharia?) laws while India was expicitly a secular state with free religion without state involvement.

Seniorsag 13:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The muslim league won overwhelming muslim vote in all muslim dominated areas of British India. Much more muslims migrated to Pakistan than non-muslims form Pakistan to India numerically. The non muslims in Pakistan were largely in Punjab where they went to east punjab. Apart from the muslim majority areas in the northwest of south asia and in the east in bangal, the muslims were dispersed all over india in small comunities. It is from these communities that Pakistan received huge numbers of refugees. Pakistan was not created for Sharia, that was the demand of the religious parties (and hence opposition to Pakistan). The muslim intellectuals wanted a seperate entity of Pakistan in muslim majority areas of south asian region so as to preserve their heritage, customs and ensure their way of living, with religious minorities having full rights and freedom in a secular environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.119.18 (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Muhammad Ali Jinnah.jpg
Image:Muhammad Ali Jinnah.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC) two-nation theory was a political doctrine, doing less,in the beggining, to do with particular dogmatic stance of either community. it was an outcome of the fear of extinction on part of the muslims as a politically significant group of india when juxtaposed against numerically and economically stroger hindu population. the influencial visionaries like Sir Syed forsaw the impending dominance of the congress by hindus and urged muslims to stay away from the politics unless they are at least as well educated as hindus were. lets, for a moment, imagine an india in which muslims were equally with hindus in terms of their societal and historical significance. would muslims still be bent upon claiming the status of a seperate polity on the basis of their faith? Taimur Aman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.183.81 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ideology of Pakistan
The two nation theory is now called "The Ideology of Pakistan". A new article called "The Ideology of Pakistan" should point back to this article on theTwo nation theory.

--ChJameel (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Two nation Theory was renamed ?
Can anybody suggest any other reason than the one which I cited, AND have again repeated below ?

It was necessary to rename Two nation theory becuase after the creation of Bangaldesh there were 3 countries instead of Two.

--ChJameel (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You might have confused countries with nations. I suggest you read the definition of a nation ... two-nation refers to Hindus and Muslims as nations, not to India or Pakistan as countries. The emergence of Bangladesh does not change the core ideology of the two nation theory. --Ragib (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Savarkar and the Two nation theory
The introduction of this article reads

''The Two-Nation Theory also known as The Ideology of Pakistan was the basis for the Partition of India in 1947. It stated that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural, and social rights, within or without a United India.''

Which means that the two-nation theory is about the seperateness of Hindus and Muslims and their need to have their own homeland. You have listed Sawarkar as its supporter without quoting any source so I am deleting the said information. I have reliable source on Sawarkar's views on Hindus and Muslims and partition which I am including in this article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken off the argument against the support, as it original research. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Hindu Maha Sabha" was an Anti Muslim organisation.
The "Hindu Maha Sabha" was an Anti Muslim organisation. It was created for encouragin violance against Muslims in India.

--ChJameel (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 countries were created on the basis of Religion 1) Pakistan and 2) Israel.
Can anybody suggest similarities bteween the two.

--ChJameel (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stand of Savarkar
The sub-section Stand of Savarkar has been removed. It was a well sourced write up, actually a quotation. It should be there. Kindly put it back or justify its removal not by flights of fancy but by verifiable facts. I'll give the deleter some time and then bring it back. Deleting editor please be conversant with wikipedia editing policies before exercising the privilege of editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is confused
The Two Nation Theory (TNT) and the Ideology of Pakistan are distinct things. The conflation in this article is based on a ref which is a polemic. I'll do some minor changes, but it needs an overhaul. The TNT is an extremely important thing in the history of the subcontinent and humanity in general. Not good to have a bad article on it.--Hunnjazal (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have revamped the introductory piece, but there is still stuff in here which is incomplete or just plain wrong. Example: The Two-Nation Theory (TNT)/Islamic Ideology of Pakistan (IIP) was merely a negation of this philosophy that the Indian sub-continent has only one nation, consuming all the inhabitants of the sub-continent into one Nation. This is incorrect. TNT is not just a negation of One Nation. It is an assertion that there are two unified Hindu and Muslim nations. This actually flew in the face of other national aspirations and the traditional British assertion that India had peoples, not nations. Many sovereignty movements in Pakistan (and India) are opposed to TNT because they believe in dozens of nations, not just two, and view TNT as a mechanism of an elite (Hindi-speaking and Urdu-speaking, which later blended with Punjabis) to impose their control by forcibly extinguishing their distinct identities into one conforming with the elite's concept. Muslims and Hindus may separate, but that doesn't mean each of them will stay together - they might individually deserve to unravel as well. There are tonnes of solid references on this, so I will try to improve the article to include this. --Hunnjazal (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work so far. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Savarkar's views on the two nation theory merits inclusion, please see my argument above too. Today there are over 150 million Muslims living in post-independence India, following the very rules rules that Savarkar insisted on one; man one vote. One also should not forget that the Indian national anthem has Punjab, Sindh and Banga. There are always centrifugal tendencies just as they are centripetal ones. The statement that there was a Hindi speaking elite responsible for uniting secular India cannot be supported with historical proofs, I do not have knowledge for the role of the Urdu speaking elite in the formation of the breakaway Muslim-India - now called as Pakistan. It is incorrect to use the paradigms drawn up by the British colonialists, in the study of India. The British policy is very easily summarised in the following remark made by Hyndman

... Attempts are even being made at the present time, in view of the growing discontent and threatening demonstrations against our system, to maintain our domination, as it was originally established, by stirring up internecine animosities. Even official organs are not ashamed openly to appeal to the fanaticism of Mohammedans against Hindus for the special purpose of weakening the rising agitation against unendurable economic, social and race oppression. But this shameful policy will be unsuccessful and neither Moslem bigotry nor European rifles and artillery can permanently maintain a foreign despotism which has proved a failure in every direction. White capitalist rule, now doomed to an early overthrow, will seem but a short and hideous nightmare in the long and glorious life of India. Upon the withdrawal of the English the Indians will begin afresh their old career of internal development, side by side with the other progressive peoples of the world. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunjazal's edits
The method used by Hunjazal of introducing properly sourced material is commendable. It should not be forgotten that the lead should be a summary of what is written in the article. Please first introduce material in the article and then summarise it in the lead.

The phrase officially secular struck to me as a snide remark and I wished to check whether it was there in the source quoted, however the link provided for the source quoted generated an error message. Hunjazal please look into the matter. This is a founding principle of the modern, officially-secular, Republic of India. Even after the formation of Pakistan, debates on whether Muslims and Hindus are distinct nationalities or not continued in that country as well.[12]

Also it should be clear that the two nation theory refers to Muslims living in the then British colony of India and later in the successor states first India and Pakistan (East Pakistan and West Pakistan) and now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that the leader should be a punchy intro, but the article is/was so all over the place that I didn't know where to start, so that's where I started. The intent is for it to look like it should. Officially secular isn't intended to be snide - infact, it's the opposite - it's meant to emphasize the fact that this is an enshrined principle of the Republic. Will check the source. The Republic of India is officially secular though, isn't it? On the concept that TNT refers to Muslims living in the then British colony of India, actually the answer is "not entirely." It depends on whose interpretation of TNT you're talking about. Iqbal's idea was that the Hindus are one Nation and *all* the Muslims of the world are also a Nation. He said it over and over again -
 * Bazoo tera tauheed ki quwwat sey qavi hai, Islam tera des hai tu mustafavi hai
 * Cheen-o-Arab hamara, Hindostan hamara, Muslim hain hum, watan hai saara jahaan hamara
 * Butaan-e-rang-o-khoon ko tor kar millat mein gum ho ja, Na Irani rahey baaqi, na Turani, na Afghani
 * But if you're talking about Jinnah, you're right. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Two Nation Theory today
What I intend to bring to attention is that when I wrote that Two Nation Theory refers to Muslims living in the then British colony of India and later in the successor states first India and Pakistan (East Pakistan and West Pakistan) and now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, is that all the arguments put for and against TNT, should take into consideration the 150 million Muslims living in the officially non-Muslim country of India one of the successor states of the colony of India. The partition of the colony of India has left 150 million Muslims living as a smaller minority, 12% as against the earlier 30%, this article should also address the issue that the TNT and the subsequent creation of east and west Pakistan, did not take into cognizance the issue that 30 percent of Muslims of the colony of India would live as a much smaller minority in a nation with a greatly reduced Muslim character and with the burden of the ownership of a movement that fought for and established a separate country for the Muslims of the colony of India. The argument for Pakistan was (as is quoted in the article)It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state. What is the position of the Muslims living in the successor officially non-Muslim India, of the colony of India in view of the above argument? This is not an idle query; that Hindus and Muslims in the colony of India have different pre-colonial episodes is elementary and puerile. One example; Adilshahi general Afzal Khan was killed by the then Maratha chieftain Shivaji. Shivaji is a Maratha hero, Afzal Khan a Muslim martyr. Muslims of the colony of India wished for and won Pakistan to celebrate the martyrdom, but Muslims living in non-Muslim India are not prepared to give Hindus the space to celebrate their version of that episode. The consequence of the present mode of application of this theory is that Muslims living one successor state of the colony of India had their interests sacrificed for the formation of east and west Pakistan, which itself could not stay together and fell apart in less than a generation. Thus this article is not about an abstract theory but a living issue, and should give the reader a holistic idea of the conditions at hand. Historically there were five important sides All the above except Gandhi are represented in the article. We must re-structure the article, frame a general outline, Hunjazal can you suggest a format here, which can then be filled in. Unless you can explain how, the Two Nation Theory is not about pan-Islamism which like those who envisaged a Hindu successor state to the colony of India are in another category. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Imperialist (Britain and now US): Keep the monkeys fighting, they will give us portions of their loaf.
 * 2) Muslim (Jinnah et al): We are two incompatible nations we want a separate sovereign state to live under our own laws and customs, with equal rights for all citizens and adequate safeguards for minorities, a secular state with a Muslim character.
 * 3) Hindus (Savarkar et al): The successor state for the colony should be single sovereign political entity, with equal rights for all citizens and adequate safeguards for protection and maintenance of culture and customs of minorities.
 * 4) Hindu Dalit (Ambedkar): Muslims are a fearful people, cannot be trusted let them have their lebensraum, transfer Muslims to Pakistan, Hindus to Hindustan.
 * 5) Congress (Gandhi et al): Hindu-Muslim bhai bhai, Hindus as the elder brother have to appease and reassure the crying younger brother.
 * 1) Hindustan (Don't know the authors, perhaps Iqbal) as a Muslim state: or a part of a bigger Muslim conglomeration of nations, has ke liya Paksitan, lar ke lenge Hindustan, Iqbal's verses Cheen-o-Arab hamara, Hindostan hamara, Muslim hain hum, watan hai saara jahaan hamara Butaan-e-rang-o-khoon ko tor kar millat mein gum ho ja, Na Irani rahey baaqi, na Turani, na Afghani, today find expression as Mughalstan.
 * 2) Hindu Hindustan (Lala Hardayal?): Hindu successor state to the colony of India.

Consolidation
All content has been preserved, but I have consolidated into a few sections because there is just so much repetition. Also, it is clear that people feel strongly one way or another about this. If you are approaching editing this article with strong emotions, I suggest taking a wikibreak. --Hunnjazal (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Logical Error in Two Nation Theory
If the Muslims of India are separate nation based on Islam and not on Language, Culture, History and Blood Relation, then in Islam as per the definition of a Muslim Nation, they do not need a separate homeland as for Islam this whole world is the homeland of Muslims, thus the hypocracy is evident from the illogical equation setup here in Two Nation theory. The idea of a homeland is associated with the definition of Nation based on the above mentioned four components while there is no need of a homeland in the definition of a Nation in Islam. In order to claim a land, the definition of Nation has been concocted, moulded, corrupted and applied to the definition of Nation as in Islam

First of all the Muslims of India and Pakistan were declared as a Nation based on the teachings of Islam ( Islam may declare Muslims as one Nation but at the same time clearly mentions that this Muslim Nation does not need a separate Homeland as this whole world is the Homeland of all the Muslims )

Once declaring all the Muslims of India and Pakistan as a Nation, then this word Nation was peeled off from the Islamic Definition of Nation and pasted on to the definition of Nation which is based on Language, Culture, History and Blood Relation ( a separate Homeland is logical for a Nation based on the above mentioned 4 components but not according to the teachings of Islam ) and thus a separate Homeland was demanded for Muslims of India and Pakistan which is illogical

This is hypocracy and worst kind of USE OF RELIGION FOR PERSONAL OBJECTIVES and that is why Pakistan is a failed State

Pakistanis must get rid of this hypocracy and correct themselves by moulding themselves into one Nation based on one Language, one History, one Culture and by intermarrying each other. This Nation must be Urdu Nation as only Urdu can merge all the nationalities of Pakistan into a Nation. This is the only way to correct the basis of Pakistan. Refusing to do so deliberately would lead Pakistan to further destruction and eventually this country would break into several States on the lines of Nationalism based on the above 4 basic factors

Please read www.urdu-nation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snahmed129 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bold textTwo Nation Theory July 15, 2010 No Comment

Q.2. Explain the Two Nation Theory.

Meaning of Two Nation Theory

The Two Nation Theory is its simplest way means the cultural, political, religious, economic and social dissimilarities between the two major communities, Hindus and Muslims of the Sub Continent. These differences of out look, in fact, were greatly instrumental in giving rise to to two distinct political ideologies which were responsible for the partition of India into two independent states.

The Basis of the Creation of Pakistan

The Two Nation Theory was the basis of the struggle for creation of Pakistan which held that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations. They in spite of living together for centuries could not forget their individual cultures and civilization. Al-Beruni recorded his ideas in 1001 A.D in his famous book “Kitab-ul-Hind” as

The Hindu society maintained this peculiar character over the centuries. The two societies, Hindus and Muslims, like two streams have sometimes touched but never merged, each following its separate course.

There are a few factors which split the inhabitants of the Sub Continent into two nations. Let us examine each of them separately.

1. Religious Difference The Hindus and Muslims belong to different religions. Islam preaches Tauheed (oneness of Allah) and believes in equality of man before law. Muslims are the believers of God, the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H), the Holy book Quran and hold a cohesive approach towards life. Hinduism, on the other hand is based on the concept of multiple Gods. Their society follows a caste system and is divided into four classes and has a very narrow approach towards life.

2. Hindu Nationalism A number of Hindu nationalist movement, which emerged from time to time in the Indian history, added fuel to the fire by playing up the tension and antagonism which already existed between the two communities. The Hindu nationalist leaders totally ignored the great contribution made by the Muslims in the Indian society by way of promoting education and other social activities. Their writings and ideas flared up the communal discord between Hindus and Muslims to further pollute condition.

3. Cultural Differences Muslim followed the Islamic culture while Hindus inherited a self build culture. The Hindus burnt their dead bodies while Muslims burried them. Hindus considered the “Mother Cow” as a sacred animal and worshipped it while Muslims slaughtered it. They performed “Sati” while Muslims abhorred this tradition. The Hindus and Muslims do not intermarry nor they inter-dine.

4. Social Differences The two communities of the Sub Continent differ in their social life as well. The clothes, the foods, the household utensils, the layout of homes, the words of salutation, the gestures and every thing about them was different and immediately pointed to their distinctive origin.

5. Economic Differences After 1857, the Muslim economic was crushed and all trade policies were framed in such a way so as to detriment the Muslim condition. They were thrown out of Government services and their estates and properties were confiscated while the Hindus were provided with the ample opportunities to progress economically.

6. Educational Differences The Hindus had advanced in the educational field because they quickly and readily took to the English education while Muslims did not receive modern education which heavily affected their economic conditions.

7. Political Differences The political differences between the Hindus and Muslims have played an important role in the development and evolution of Two Nation Theory.

(i). Hindi Urdu Controvery In 1867, Hindus demanded that Urdu should be written in Hindi Script instead of Persian Script. This created another gap between Hindus and Muslims.

(ii). Congress Attitude The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885. It claimed to represent all communities of India but oppressed all Muslim ideas and supported the Hindus.

(iii). Partition of Bengal In 1905, the partition of Bengal ensured a number of political benefits for the Muslims, but the Hindus launched an agitation against the partition and partition was annulled in 1911.

8. Language The Muslim and Hindus wrote and spoke two different languages. The language of the former was Urdu and it was written in Arabic Script. On the other hand, the Hindi language was spoken by Hindus and it was written in Sanskrit. Urdu and Hindi language had the difference in writing, thoughts of poetry, arts, painting and words of music. Even this small difference led to a stirring conflict between the two nations.

Ssir Syed Ahmed – The Pioneer of Two Nation Theory The entire freedom movement revolved around the two nation theory which was introduced by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He considered all those lived in India as one nation and was a great advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity. Speaking at the meeting of nation and was a great advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity. Speaking at the meeting of nation and was a great advocate of Hindu-Muslim unity. Speaking at the meeting of Indian Association he said: “I look to both Hindus and Muslims with the same eyes and consider them as my own eyes. By the word ‘Nation’ I mean only Hindus and Muslims and nothing else. We Hindus and Muslims live together on the same soil under the same government. Our interests and problems are common, and therefore, I consider the two factions as one nation.” Two Nation Theory in the View of Allama Iqbal Allama Iqbal was the first important figure who propounded the idea of separate homeland on the basis of two nation theory. In the annual session of Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930, he said: “India is a continent of human beings belonging to different languages and professing different religions … I, therefore, demand the formation of consolidated Muslim state in the best interests of the Muslims of India and Islam.” Quaid-e-Azam’s Statement on Two Nation Theory He expounded the two nation’s theory in such detail that most Muslims and even some Hindus came to believe in its truth. He declared: “Muslims are not a minority; they are one nation by every definition of the word nation. By all canons of international law we are a nation.” Quaid-e-Azam reiterated that Hindus and Muslims could ever evolve a common nationality was an idle dream. In 1973, he said: “Hindustan is neither one country, nor its inhabitant’s one nation. This is sub continent which consists of many nations of which the Hindus and Muslims are two major nation.” Conclusion Two nation theory is the basis of the creation of Pakistan because without it Pakistan would not come into being on 14th August, 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.179.81.14 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Move
The title of this article should be Two-nation theory, according to punctuation rules (two-nation is a single qualifier, comprised of two words, so the two words need to be joined together as one using a hyphen. Without the hyphen, it would read like ‘two: [nation theories]’, ‘nation’ qualifying ‘theory’ and ‘two’ qualifying ‘nation theories’.) Hope this is clear enough... I suggest both pages be swapped. Waiting for some good being to come up, notice and rectify this issue... — Шαмıq   ☪   тαʟκ✍ @ 20:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Requested here! Fai  zan  13:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Two nation theory → Two-nation theory – according to punctuation rules (two-nation is a single qualifier, comprised of two words, so the two words need to be joined together as one using a hyphen. Without the hyphen, it would read like ‘two: [nation theories]’, ‘nation’ qualifying ‘theory’ and ‘two’ qualifying ‘nation theories’.) Hope this is clear enough... I suggest both pages be swapped. Waiting for some good being to come up, notice and rectify this issue... Fai zan  13:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Or move to Two-nation theory? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and No – per Anthony. Add the hyphen, but don't change to capitalized.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fai zan  08:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * 2 in Support Agreed, have modified it now, now it's "Two-nation" Fai  zan  08:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per this being how English works. Red Slash 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Two-nation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071111023629/http://www.pakistantimes.net:80/2007/04/03/oped2.htm to http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/04/03/oped2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606172153/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-3-2004_pg7_16 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-3-2004_pg7_16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060831160803/http://www.mqm.org:80/English-News/Apr-2000/TWO%20NATION%20THEORY.htm to http://www.mqm.org/English-News/Apr-2000/TWO%20NATION%20THEORY.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Two-nation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612065207/http://newsurdu.net/article/2010/05/29/column-340/ to http://newsurdu.net/article/2010/05/29/column-340/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Savarkar's view of Two nation Theory
Last time, I visited this article, there was a quotation of Ambedkars thoughts on Savarkar's version of Two Nation Theory. This has been omitted and replaced with a different version. I am ok if thats true however the reference points to B.R Ambedkar's page which does not mention anything of that topic. Kindly provide suitable references or please have the original one back up. RKoC — Preceding unsigned comment added by RkoC (talk • contribs) 16:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted an expansion of the Savarkar section even though it looked reasonably well-written. The problem is that it is not how it fits with this article, except to whitewash the Muslim League focus and claim that the "Hindus" had the same ideas. But Savarkar represented a very narrow section of Hindus, which managed to win no more than 4 seats in the Indian general election in 1950. So an elaborate section on the subject here (especially now that we have "Pakistan" in the title) seems totally WP:UNDUE. I am happy to be persuaded that I am wrong if such be the case. But please establish the WP:WEIGHT here before expanding the section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Explanation for deleting followoing text
(1)wp:RS are not provided for the following edit, therefore it is deleted. (2)Sufficient reason for the deletion of well sourced sub-section not provided, so it is brought back.

''The Two Nation Theory was first presented by Rai, Savarkar, Golwalker etc., Jinnah simply accepted it. Mr. Savarkar... HINDUTVA (Hindu-Nazism) is a nationalist political philosophy that was defined primarily by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883-1966), President of the ABHM (Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha = All India Hindu Assembly), along with K B Hedgewar & M S Golwalkar (1st & 2nd RSS chiefs), who were all enthusiastic admirers of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf”: - “From the Indus to the Himalayas, from the Himalayas to Tibet, from Tibet to Burma and from Burma to the Southern and Western seas run the lines of the boundaries of our Land.”, V D Savarkar, ABHM 21st Session, 1939; - “The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights.”, M S Golwalkar, 2nd RSS chief (1940-1973), 1938; - “…if we Hindus in India grow stronger in time these Moslem friends of the league type will have to play the part of German-Jews … India must be a Hindu land, reserved for the Hindus.”, V D Savarkar, ABHM 20th Session, 1938; - “…the Indian Mahommedans, Jews, Christians, Parsees, etc. are excluded from claiming themselves as Hindus”, V D Savarkar, ABHM 19th Session, 1937; - “The RSS’ only aim is to polarise the Indian masses on communal lines, wherever possible in order to awaken a dormant Hindi nationalism”, K B Hedgewar, 1st RSS chief (1925-40); - “All Hindutva opponents will get the death sentence”, Praveen Togadia, VHP secretary-general, Dec. 2002;'' Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

..........

In my opinion, the above text, with some edits to make it more neutral, should have been included. This background is very important to the whole happening as related to partition of India.

Atanu2013 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Post-partition perspectives in India
I am tagging the section #Post-partition perspectives in India with a POV tag. It says nothing about how Muslims have been integrated into the Indian nationalist project, ignores how the Hindu Mahasabha has been routed, and the fact that the modern Bharatiya Janata Party has a completely different idea of Hindutva. What is presented in the section is really the pre-Partition idea of "Hindutva". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This section seems to need more work. It feels less professional a section and more like an opinion piece from someone's view-point. 1. It doesn't seem to address all the post-partition perspectives in India. It should contain extremist and non-extremist view-points from all sections of Indian society. 2. Shouldn't it also contain similar perspectives from other parts of the past Colonial India, i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh? I don't think it should omit other countries created post-partition. Views in Pakistan and how their society has progressed should also find a mention akin to views given from India's perspective. This section should either be presented in a complete manner or removed altogether. --MycrofD (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Post-partition perspectives in India : Shashi Tharoor, Historian ??
The section entitled 'Post-partition perspectives in India' describes Shashi Tharoor as a historian 'Indian historians such as Shashi Tharoor have claimed that the partition of India was a result of the divide-and-rule policies of the British colonial government initiated after Hindus and Muslims united together to fight against the British East India Company in the Indian Rebellion of 1857.' Tharoor has a bachelor's degree in history, but that's about it. His further course of studies have nothing to do with history, smippet below from Tharoor's academic qualifications from his wikipedia page.

'In 1975, Tharoor graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from St Stephen's College, University of Delhi, where he had been president of the student union and also founded the St. Stephen's Quiz Club.[16] Within the same year, Tharoor went to the United States to obtain an MA in International Relations at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University in Medford. After obtaining his M.A. in 1976, Tharoor further obtained his Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy in 1977 and his PhD in International Relations and Affairs in 1978 Indian historians such as Shashi Tharoor have claimed that the partition of India was a result of the divide-and-rule policies of the British colonial government initiated after Hindus and Muslims united together to fight against the British East India Company in the Indian Rebellion of 1857.'

He has no peer reviewed, widely accepted papers on history on any topic whatsoever. He has published non-fiction books on history, but that does not qualify anyone as a historian. Suggest renaming 'Indian historians such as Shashi Tharoor...' to 'Reputed Indian Politicians such as Shashi Tharoor...'

Suksane (talk) 10:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Suksane

Title needs disambiguation
It seems needlessly confusing to me that this article is called "Two-nation theory", without any disambiguators, when there are two similarly named articles at the DAB page Two Nations theory. I think it would make more sense if this article was called something like "Two-nation theory (India)" or "Two-nation theory (British India)". What do you guys think? - 87.58.119.203 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Significance of two nation theory
بعض کسی 118.107.134.250 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Two nation theory
Definition “Two-Nation Theory” refers to the thesis that Hindus and Muslims in India were two distinct communities that could not coexist within a single state without dominating and discriminating against the other or without constant conflict; it resulted in the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan.

Locating the Theory’s Origin The exact chronology of how “Two-Nation Theory” developed is subject to debate. Often associated with the thinking of Sir Syed Aḥmad Khān (1817–1898), some identify Aḥmad Sirhindī (1564–1624) as the theory’s “chief architect” [1]. Muḥammad Iqbāl (1877–1938) is often credited with explicitly proposing the geopolitical partition of India into two separate states [2]. However, his state would have been within a federal India, a state within a state [3], a proposition that Abū’l-A‘lā Mawdūdī (1903–1979) also supported [4]. The specific proposition to create two sovereign political entities, one with a Muslim, the other a Hindu majority, dates from Raḥmat ‘Alī... 118.107.134.250 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Anti-TNT views
, I have removed the content you have added at the beginning, because it doesn't belong there. The history should start with 17th century, not 1940s.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

New edits
, removal of multiple reliable sources, with no basis other than 'not good content'. usage of words "ideology" which is not used in any current source. two-nation theory is a theory, thesis, i have seen the term hypothesis too, but not an ideology,and so far i haven't found any source using this term, which seems to be original research. I have not seen the two-nation theory described as "nationalism" either, a thesis is a thesis used to support nationalism, it isn't nationalism by itself--Mydust (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 99% of academic references on the subject describe the two-nation theory as advocating religious nationalism, while you have removed these sources, and instead have shoved "cultural nationalism" in the lede. You also remove any discussion of alternate views from the "Roots" section though there is only a paragraph devoted to it. You have shabbily placed information on dissent in the "Azad Muslim Conference" section when that is not the same thing as the Momin Conference. It is important to show that Indian Muslims were not monolithic in their views. You have also removed important quotes by Mountbatten from the article (which I have not restored yet, though I plan to do so). Per WP:BRD, your novel synthesis will be reversed and you must gain consensus for it here. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been a month or so, but I decided to return to this as I am free now.
 * 99% of academic references do not reference it as religious nationalism. Stop being anecdotal. Actually among leading historians on the topic in recent decades, the opposite seems to be true:
 * "In the conventional contours of the debates about ethnic nationalism in the South Asian context, then, the story of ethnic violence - during Partition and after - is often narrated as one of the conflict between communalism and national secularism. Recently, historians have tried to shift the terms of this debate to challenge the simplistic binary division between secularist nationalism and communalism....a move to re-describe communalism as "culturalism" has sought to open up a way to think of religious difference as a modern problem of cultural or ethnic differerence through which identities are mobilized. For example, Ayesha Jalal argues that the gravitation of Muslims in India towards the idea of a Muslim community in the early twentieth century is less "communal" or religious, and more of a "cultural" move - a gravitation towards an assertion of cultural difference and a "religiously informed cultural identity"Violent Belongings:Partition, Gender, and National Culture in Postcolonial India, Kavita Daiya, 2011
 * "Jinnah's two-nation theory imagined a nation of Muslims unified by a shared sense of cultural identity among India's Muslims."Revisiting India's Partition:New Essays on Memory, Culture, and Politics, Kaiser Haq, 2016
 * Mridula Nath Chakraborty probably explains it better:
 * "The ideological labour involved in producing this loyalty to the nation - and by extension, the state which ostensibly represents/embodies it - is performed through the agency of "national culture". As Qureshi goes on to suggest, it can also be performed by religion, but only if religion itself is cast in a cultural mould.....Thse claims (which undergirded the "two-nation theory") had been based on cultural grounds understood as an ethnic Muslim identity as well as a clearly identifiable cultural history; hence, Islam in a civilizational as opposed to a religious cause, being simultaneously Muslim and Indian as a claim to peoplehood separate from, if overlapping with, the sense of belonging to a larger Islamic political community, the Ummah"
 * Ayesha Jalal writes that Iqbal's proposal for the Northwest Indian Muslim State was based on a cultural defence inherent in the proposal, as it was "India's cultural differences required a political solution." Self and Sovereignty
 * Individual and Community in South Asian Islam Since 1850, page 324 Mydust (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pakistan (both its east and west parts) was created as a homeland for Indian Muslims, despite the fact that different parts of India had differing cultures. You cannot claim that they all had a common culture and neither do sources. This is your own POV for which editors have reversed your edits. You deliberately have removed the Bengal region from the lead too. I am going to reverse your edits, which don't have consensus. Pakistan was created on the basis of religious nationalism. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bengal was originally not part of the two-nation theory, as Sayyid Ahmed Khan who is credited as the founder of the two-nation theory excludes it:
 * "While there is no statement against the Hindus in either of these speeches, but about the Bengalis, Sayyid Ahmad Khan had a great deal more to say. More than anything else, this defined his notion of the territoriality of his Hindustan and suggested that hte 'Sir Sayyid' school's idea of a Muslim qawm was exclusively a Hindustani Muslim qaum. Sayyid Ahmad Khan's geographical boundaries of qaum and his vision of Hindustan suggested that his ambitions were related to the Muslim qaum located only in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, the Punjab and Bihar, a regin with which he was familiar culturally, and more than anything else, and a region which he could aspire to 'represent'" Akbar Zaidi, pg 66, Making a Muslim: Reading Publics and Contesting Identities in Nineteenth-Century North India.
 * No, 'other editors' didn't reverse my edits, it's just as you, and the only reason my edits were reversed by other editors were to continue this discussion at talk page. And in this discussion, you don't really provide any academic views to your claims. Just plain sentiment from 1970s era Congress views which are outdated. In the case of leading historians, and I am going to take Ayesha Jalal as a leading historian as she is cited by pretty much every historian in this decade, I am going to cite her as consensus. You aren't really participating in the discussion, you're just repeating sentiment, so I am going to reverse your edits at this point which aren't backed by reliable sources.Mydust (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What you are quoting does not support your position, but rather, you are removing mainstream reliable sources to replace them with your revisionist fringe view (implementing your confirmation bias). Your own citation says "the Muslim qaum located only in the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, the Punjab and Bihar". The North-Western Provinces and Oudh (modern day Uttar Pradesh), Bihar and half of Punjab are not in what became Pakistan. A large swath of the Bengal region is, which you are sneakily omitting in your edits. The position you are forcing into this article is against consensus and the long-standing version. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is about the two-nation theory, it's not about the territorial boundaries of Pakistan though. And the Pakistan movement indeed primarily took place in Punjab and Northwestern Provinces & Oudh. Lastly, I would not call Ayesha Jalal a "fringe" view on the topic. Mydust (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The very source you use puts "cultural nationalism" in scare quotes and calls it a "narrative". This is because it is a revisionist version of history. Punjabi Muslims, Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Sikhs shared the same culture. The two nation theory asserts that because these Punjabis are of different faiths, that they belong to different nations. This is religious nationalism and is mentioned in the citations you keep removing and replacing with the revisionist view. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * that's because it's a commentary on another historian, and puts "communal" in scare quotes as well. I see no point in ur complaint. No, the two-nation theory asserts that because of faith, they belong to separate cultures, the nation idea comes after that. In India the differences between Muslims and Hindus exists in a cline, hell west Punjab and east Punjab don't share the same culture; because i don't see anything like the a pothwari sitar even among Dogras who being hill-men are inclined due to climate and geography to share the same culture as pothwaris, right? That's without mentioning the entirety of Sindh ie Dumboro nothing close to Tanpura, alghozo, moro being nothing like Gujarat. In any case, whether the two-nation theory is accurate or not is besides the point, the point is whether the two-nation theory based Muslim identity on a sense of culture or faith, because the top-leaders like Jinnah certainly were not religious, for many "Muslims" in India today who aren't religious, religion is used as a cultural symbol or identity which is entirely something else, and this is what Jinnah and Syed Ahmad Khan was referring to; as Ayesha Jalal describes that the mobilization of the Indian Muslim in the nineteenth century as a community was primarily towards a cultural community, as she attributes to Mirza Ghalib: "I have none of the hallmarks of a Muslim; why is it that every humiliation that the Muslims suffer pains and grieves me so much?"Mydust (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)