Zahurul Alam :Concept is an abstract idea, whereas a theory is an established scientific principle based on experimental and observational evidence(s). Pakistan was created based on ‘Two Nation’ concept that lacked empirical evidences. It defined nation denying the very fundamentals of nationality or nationhood: language, ethnicity, geographical and economic uniformity, cultural and historical homogeneity of the people. Such denial and intentional negligence of the basics of a nation ultimately led to widespread discrimination among the peoples and instigated conflicts. The emergence of Pakistan on the basis of so called ‘Two Nation’ concept put itself in a coffin. Subsequent activities of this strange state started putting nails in that coffin, one after another. Vested interest of the Pakistani elite, representing land lords, industrialists and the Generals started killing Pakistan and putting the nails in its coffin during the whole period of its union with East Pakistan. These elites never had any desire to realize the aspirations of the people of neither the East nor the West wings of this strange state. The power capturers of Pakistan placed religion as a sedative to suppress people’s aspirations and as an instrument to stick to power.Founding principle of a nation state is important for its sustainability. Pakistan’s founding principle, as mentioned above, was merely a concept of nationhood based on religion. Mr Jinnah, whose lifestyle was far from that of a Muslim, and who happened to be an ambitious politician, captured this idea to fulfill his political ambition of becoming a statesman, which was not possible for him being part of the Indian National Congress that was already crowded by many eminent politicians, who overwhelmed him in all areas of political professionalism. Only a separate state without the influence of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose and other prominent figures could provide him the space for being at the forefront of the political scenario. He chose to propagate ‘Two Nation’ concept to attain his ambition. In doing this he got support mostly from the ‘non-Bengali Bengalis’ of Bangla, in addition to other Bengali politicians. The Khawazas of Dhaka were among those, in addition to some of the prominent Banglee politicians. The original idea of partition of India was to create three states on the basis of Lahore Resolution proposed by A.K Fazlul Haque in 1940. However, the inherent to the nature of Pakistani politics of conspiracy started from that moment and the Lahore Resolution was changed to create two states, India and Pakistan, instead of Bangla as one of the separate states. The distortion of Lahore Resolution by the perverted politicians of Muslim League paved the path to attach rich and wealthy Bangla with feudalistic provinces of West Pakistan: Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh and NWFP. On the other hand, in attaching Bangla with West Pakistan, the British chose to divide Bangla taking example from the division of Bangla in 1905 (Bangabhanga), which was re-united again in 1911. This fragmented Bangla was convenient for Pakistani rulers, like the British from the point of view of divide and rule policy. For West Pakistan, it would be an impossible task to overwhelm united Bangla with its huge economic, cultural and political potential. Congress was also completely satisfied with divided Bangla, as that would substantially reduce influence of Bangla in Indian economy and politics. The most incorrect and motivated and ill designed argument of the propagators of ‘Two Nation’ concept was their attempt to establish the myth that the Hindus and Muslims in India were two distinct nations with sustainable antagonism throughout the history. Therefore, according to them, these two ‘nations’ should have separate states based on religion. As an attempt to prove the so called ‘Theory’ the potential beneficiaries, instigated Hindu-Muslim riots all over India in the mid-forties, including the most hostile one in Calcutta in 1946, which prompted division of India based on religion. The ‘Two Nation’ concept inspired the Muslim and Hindu radical forces in the Sub Continent to create religious, racial and ethnic antagonism. It provided the Hindu extremists instrument to proliferate that the Indian Muslims were non-Indian foreigners and they must be treated as second class citizens in India. The extremists also tried to reinforce the idea that the Muslims happened to be the enemies of India and hence they were to be thrown out of India. However, emergence of India as a secular modern state prevented these ill motives. Nevertheless, India started to become restless more frequently than ever following the acceptance by the Indian politicians the idea of ‘Two Nations’.A crucial question for the Indian Muslims was, whether or not the emergence of two states based on religion was good for the Indian Muslims. Most prominent Muslim politicians, including Abul Kalam Azad refused the idea of formation of such state apprehending that such division would put majority of the Indian Muslims who would supposedly be living in India, in obstinate position. Their arguments were substantiated by the logic that the Muslims living in India would not have a safe living if the Indian extremists use religion as a tool for discrimination. Most irresponsible, unscientific and historically false propaganda was that the Indian Hindus and Muslims lead conflicting manner of living and that they are not in a position to live as good neighbors being citizens of same state. This falsehood had never been supported by Indian history. The Hindus and Muslims led friendly lives and livelihoods for centuries, irrespective of who was ruling the country or the states. The Indian history has always shown harmonized, peaceful and synchronized co-existence of all nations and ethnicities over thousands of years. The foreign aggression in Bengla and in India was opposed both by the Muslims and the Hindus together, and the traitors were also from both the religions. So, it was never religious sentiment that changed the political scenario in India for centuries. Most interestingly, Mr Jinnah expressed his concepts of the nations in India differently in different places. While in most cases, during the early 40s he tried to establish his ‘Two Nations’ concept to divide India on the basis of religion; in 1947, when all practicalities led to the point of dividing Punjab and Bengal, Jinnah told the then Governor general of India Lord Mountbatten that a man is a Panjabi or a Bengali first before he is Hindu or Muslim. Jinnah’s contradictory statements over time reflected his lean affiliation to the concept he had been propagating to divide India based on religion. In line with Moulana Abul Kalam Azad, the ‘Two Nation’ concept was rejected by Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and many other prominent politicians and social leaders. They believed that majority of the Indian Muslims (and Hindus) would be in a worse position if India is divided into religious based separate nations. The argument was that not all the Muslims or Hindus would be able to be shifted to the respective states after the partition, which would place them in a politically and socially hostile environment in their own countries. The creation of the states on the basis of religion would lead to the creation of a narrow mindset based on religion and the minority remaining in any of the religious state would be the victims of oppression. Emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 and a bloody war between the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis would remain a great example in the history of mankind and a good platform for the social scientists to prove that nation state formation is a matter not confined within the concept of religion only. Religion may serve as one of the agents of formation of a nation state only. The most prominent example to this effect is absence of a single Islamic state in the Middle East, or a single Christian state in Europe. The futility of the two nation concept was evident from Jinnah’s speech of 11 August 1947 where he mentioned: “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of state.” Then on what ground and why Pakistan was needed to be created based on a concept that virtually did not carry any value in the business of the state! Suhrawardy at certain points also mentioned that the ‘theory’ proved harmful to the Muslims of India. Religion unites people in a manner which according to religion itself does not oppose, rather promotes peaceful co-existence of the people. Prophet (Sm) did not eliminate other religions and other believers after the victory of Mecca. The propagators of ‘Two Nations’ concept, who collaborated with the Pakistanis during our Liberation Movements starting from 14 August 1947 and repressed innocent people always acted against Islam in the name of Islam. According to Altaf Hossain, a prominent leader of Muttahida Quami Movement “The idea of Pakistan was dead at its inception, when the majority of Muslims (in Muslim-minority areas of India) chose to stay back in India after partition, a truism reiterated in the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.” The irrelevance and fraudulent character of the ‘Two Nation’ concept has been unveiled by many politicians during the 40s and even today. The MQM leader Altaf Hossain, representing the Muslim refugees in Pakistan has categorically disregarded the concept by saying that the ‘Two Nations’ concept was a farce and it was the biggest fraud played with the Muslims of India. He also mentioned that the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 demonstrated complete irrelevance of the so called ‘Two Nations Theory’. The history of Pakistan movement suggests that all provinces of Pakistan except the Sindh Assembly rejected the idea of creating Pakistan. The supporters of Pakistan in Sindh Assembly won with a majority of one vote. Bengal was the first to support creation of Pakistan and it was the first to separate itself by correcting the mistake that was done in 1947. Irrelevance of the ‘Two Nations’ concept is also demonstrated by the fact that current Muslim population in India is greater than that in current Pakistan. The Muslims in India are enjoying religious and cultural freedom and are proud to be Indians. What then was the relevance of dividing India based on religion? Pakistan is even not interested to accommodate stranded Pakistanis now living in Bangladesh. What protection this state is providing to the Muslims of this Sub-continent!The movements for self-determination, freedom, democracy and human rights in East Pakistan over the entire period of its ‘alliance’ with Pakistan became stronger year after year in response to discrimination instigated by the Pakistani rulers. One of the most evident discrimination was in terms of allocation of resources from the common budget of Pakistan. Despite larger population and larger share of foreign currency earnings, the Eastern Wing of Pakistan continuously received smaller share of central budgetary allocation of Pakistan. Year-wise Budgetary Allocation of Pakistan(in Crores of Pakistani Rupees)Year Spending onWest Pakistan Spending onEast Pakistan Amount spent on East as percentage of West1950-55 1,129 524 46.41955-60 1,655 524 31.71960-65 3,355 1,404 41.81965-70 5,195 2,141 41.2Total 11,334 4,593 40.5The discrimination between the two provinces of Pakistan covered all spheres of Pakistani life. East Pakistan had around 5 percent employment in the armed forces of Pakistan. All higher positions in the military and civil bureaucracy were captured by the West Pakistanis. Immediately after partition, Mr Jinnah and other politicians of Pakistan declared that Urdu would be the state language of Pakistan, although Bangalis constituted 56 percent of the population of Pakistan, and Urdu was spoken by less than 7 percent of the Pakistanis. This instigated strong nationalistic movement in East Pakistan and virtually the killings on 21 February 1952 put the first nail in the coffin of Pakistan. The movement onwards started taking organized shape and put important milestones each year in the struggle for self-determination and independence. The landslide victory of Jukto Front in 1954, students’ movement of 1962, the Six-point Movement of 1966, so called Agartala Cospiracy case and trials, mass uprising of 1968-69 and fall of military autocrat Ayub Khan, landslide victory of Awami League in 1970 and emergence of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the sole Leader of Bangali Nation, the Non-Cooperation Movement of March 1971, historic speech of 7thMarch by Bangabandhu, the genocide by the Pakistanis and their native collaborators from 25th March, formation of Exile Government of Bangladesh with Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as the President of the Republic are the milestones of our Liberation Movement and each constituted nail in the coffin of Pakistan. The Victory of the Nation on 16 December 1971 put the last nail in the coffin of Pakistan. (Professor Zahurul Alam Ph.D, President, Governance and Rights Centre (GRC), E-mail: [email protected])
