PACE

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE

BY

ADEEL SHAUKAT

TWO-NATION THEORY

Introduction

T
he Two-Nation Theory indeed has roots that trace back to the social,
cultural, and political developments of 19th-century colonial India. Its
emergence was shaped by a series of events and policies that
underscored the growing divide between Hindus and Muslims.

T
he Urdu-Hindi controversy of 1867 was a turning point. It arose
from the demand by Hindu leaders in Uttar Pradesh (then United
Provinces) to replace Urdu—written in the Arabic script and widely used
by Muslims in northern India—with Hindi in the Devanagari script as the
official language. This move was perceived by many Muslims, including Sir
Syed Ahmed Khan, as an attempt to marginalize their cultural and
linguistic identity. For Sir Syed, this marked a shift in his outlook, making him
conclude that the interests of Hindus and Muslims could not be reconciled
within a unified political framework.

T
he perception of British favoritism toward Hindus further aggravated
this divide. The British administration’s introduction of Western
education and new employment opportunities primarily benefited
Hindus, who were quicker to adapt to the colonial systems of governance
and education. Muslims, recovering from the loss of power after the Mughal
Empire's decline and the traumatic aftermath of the 1857 rebellion, were
slower to integrate into these new systems. This economic and social
marginalization deepened the sense of alienation among Muslims.

S
ir Syed Ahmed Khan, recognizing these challenges, advocated for
Muslim self-awareness and separate political safeguards. While he
initially supported Hindu-Muslim unity, the growing rift convinced him
of the need for a distinct Muslim identity. His efforts in establishing the
Aligarh Movement and the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College (later
Aligarh Muslim University) aimed at educating Muslims and preparing them
for modern challenges while fostering a sense of unity among them as a
separate community.
 PACE

T
he Two-Nation Theory, as a philosophy, drew heavily on these early
developments. It wasn’t merely a response to religious differences but
also a reaction to the political, social, and economic dynamics of
colonial India. It articulated the belief that Hindus and Muslims, as distinct
nations with their own histories, cultures, and interests, required separate
political frameworks to safeguard their identities and aspirations. This
foundational idea continues to echo in debates about pluralism, identity, and
nationhood in the modern world.

The Objectives

 Cultural and religious differences: Muslims and Hindus had

fundamental cultural and religious differences, which made it
impossible for them to live together as one nation.
 Political representation: Muslims could not have adequate political
representation and protection of their interests in a united India, as
they would always be in a minority.
 Historical legacy: The theory emphasized the historical legacy of
Muslims in the subcontinent, and argued that Muslims had a distinct
cultural and political identity that was not compatible with the Hindu-
majority culture of India.
 Muslim unity: The Two-Nation Theory aimed to unite Muslims across
the subcontinent under a common political platform, and to create a
separate Muslim homeland in which they could live according to their
cultural and religious values.

B
oth Allama Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali
Jinnah have a strong stanch about Two-Nation Theory throughout their
life. Their speeches reflected a deep commitment to the Two-Nation
Theory, and his vision of a separate Muslim homeland based on democratic
principles and minority rights continues to shape the identity and aspirations
of Pakistan today.

P
residential Address to the All India Muslim League — December 29,
1930, Allahabad: This speech is often considered to be a precursor to
Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s later address in the same session. Baba Iqbal
argued that Muslims were a separate nation with a distinct identity, culture
and history and that they needed to organize themselves politically in order
to protect their interests.

P
residential Address to the All India Muslim Conference — December
28, 1931, Lahore: In this speech, Iqbal emphasized the importance of
Muslim unity and the need for a separate Muslim state. He argued that
Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations and that they could not live
together in a single nation-state.
 PACE

P
residential Address to the All India Muslim League — March 22, 1932,
Delhi: In this speech, Iqbal outlined his vision for a separate Muslim
state.” He argued that such a state would be based on Islamic
principles and would provide a safe haven for Muslims to practice their
religion and culture freely.

A
ddress to the Punjab Muslim League — March 30, 1940, Lahore: This
speech is famous for the Two-Nation Theory that it advanced. Baba
Iqbal argued that Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations with
distinct cultures, histories and identities and that they could not be
integrated into a single nation-state. He called for the creation of a separate
Muslim state in the northwestern and eastern regions of India.

Q
uaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also delivered many speeches
about the Two-Nation Theory throughout his political career. Here are
some of the notable speeches he gave on this subject, along with their
dates and places:

P
residential Address to the All India Muslim League — December 29,
1930, Allahabad: This speech is often considered to be Jinnah’s
definitive statement on the Two-Nation Theory. He declared that
Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations and that the only solution to
their differences was the creation of a separate Muslim state.

A
ddress to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly — August 11, 1947,
Karachi: In this historic speech, Jinnah laid out his vision for the new
nation of Pakistan. He emphasized that the country would be a
democratic state based upon divine justice system that would respect the
rights of all citizens, regardless of their religion or ethnicity.

A
ddress to the All India Muslim League Session — March 23, 1940,
Lahore: This speech is famous for the Lahore Resolution, which called
for the creation of an independent Muslim state in the northwestern
and eastern regions of India. Jinnah argued that Muslims were a separate
nation with distinct political, economic, and cultural interests and that they
needed a separate homeland to protect these interests.

T
hese speeches, along with many others, played a significant role in
shaping the Two-Nation Theory and the eventual creation of Pakistan as
a separate Muslim state in 1947.

An Understanding

T
he Two-Nation Theory is often misunderstood when reduced solely to
a narrative of religious or cultural incompatibility. A fuller
understanding recognizes that the theory was deeply influenced by
political and structural concerns, particularly the fear of majoritarianism in a
Hindu-dominated democratic framework.
 PACE

T
he Muslim leaders, especially those in the All India Muslim League,
articulated this fear extensively. They were apprehensive that in a post-
colonial united India, Muslims - being a numerical minority - would
be politically marginalized, economically disadvantaged, and culturally
suppressed under a Hindu-majority government. This apprehension was not
just speculative; it was reinforced by events during British colonial rule, such
as Hindu-Muslim tensions over representation in legislative councils,
education, and employment opportunities.

F
or the Muslim League, the argument for Pakistan was not solely about
Islam being "in danger" in a religious sense, but also about
safeguarding political autonomy and socio-economic security for
Muslims. The idea was to prevent the Muslim community from being
perpetually subordinated within a framework where Hindu interests could
dominate decision-making processes.

T
his fear of majoritarianism dovetails with broader global concerns about
minority rights in democratic setups, where numerical strength often
translates into political power. Hence, the Two-Nation Theory, at its
core, was as much a response to these structural political concerns as it was
to cultural and religious differences. This broader perspective enriches the
understanding of the Pakistan Movement and its motivations.

Relevance

T
he assertion of distinct identities and the need for protective measures
to prevent subjugation is relevant to broader discussions about global
justice, power dynamics, and selective application of moral principles in
geopolitics.

I
n the contemporary context, the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-
Palestine conflict showcases how international responses to crises are
often shaped by political alliances, strategic interests, and ideological
affinities rather than consistent moral standards. The stark difference in how
the world has reacted to these two situations can indeed be interpreted
through a lens similar to the Two-Nation Theory’s emphasis on unequal
power dynamics and fears of marginalization.

1. Ukraine-Russia Conflict (2022–present):

The swift condemnation of Russia's invasion by the U.S., NATO, and

allied nations reflects the alignment of interests with Ukraine and the
broader Western commitment to maintaining territorial sovereignty
and opposing aggression in Europe. This united global response
 PACE
underlines a sense of solidarity based on shared political and cultural
affinities.

2. Israel-Palestine Conflict (2023 escalation):

Conversely, the relative silence or outright support for Israel’s military
actions in Palestine, despite significant civilian casualties and alleged
war crimes, highlights a double standard. This can be attributed to
geopolitical alliances, particularly between the U.S. and Israel, as well
as the framing of the conflict within broader narratives of "security"
and "self-defense."

T
he Two-Nation Theory’s relevance emerges when seen as a broader
principle addressing power imbalances. The theory asserted that one
group (Muslims in undivided India) would face perpetual marginalization
under a majority (Hindus), necessitating a separate homeland to preserve
their rights and identity. Similarly, in modern geopolitical conflicts, nations or
communities that lack influential allies often find their suffering ignored or
justified, while powerful states and their allies receive disproportionate
support.

T
he disparity in international responses to the Ukraine and Palestine
crises reflects the selective prioritization of issues based on global
power structures rather than universal justice. This echoes the fear of
subjugation that was central to the Two-Nation Theory. For Palestinians, the
struggle for recognition and statehood mirrors the historical anxieties of
marginalized groups fearing domination by a more powerful "other."

W
hile the contexts differ, the essence of the argument—that distinct
identities or weaker groups require specific protections to avoid
systemic subjugation—remains relevant and visible in modern
geopolitics.

Does the Two-Nation Theory still exist after the separation

of East Pakistan?

T
he Two-Nation Theory, despite its foundational role in the creation of
Pakistan, remains a subject of complex debate, especially in light of the
events surrounding the separation of East Pakistan in 1971 and the
emergence of Bangladesh. This historical development prompted many to
question the validity and applicability of the theory. However, perspectives
on its relevance vary significantly.
 PACE

A
dvocates argue that the historical, cultural, and religious differences
between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent justified the creation
of Pakistan as a separate homeland for Muslims. They contend that
these differences remain stark, particularly in India, where the socio-political
marginalization of Muslims under policies perceived as majoritarian
underscores the need for a separate Muslim state.

T
he creation of Pakistan is viewed as a success in providing Muslims with
a political and cultural space to flourish independently. Proponents see
Pakistan’s existence as a validation of the theory, emphasizing that it
has allowed Muslims to preserve their religious identity, language, and
traditions free from external dominance.

E
vents such as the demolition e.g. Babri Masjid (1992), communal riots
(Gujarat 2002) and the rise of Hindu nationalist politics are cited as
evidence that the concerns underpinning the Two-Nation Theory, fear
of Muslim marginalization in a Hindu-majority state—were not unfounded.

D
espite internal challenges, Pakistan’s continued status as a homeland
for Muslims is often cited as proof of the enduring validity of the Two-
Nation Theory. The theory, in this view, transcends the specifics of
East Pakistan's separation and focuses on the broader purpose of
safeguarding Muslim autonomy and rights.

T
he recent ouster of Sheikh Hasina as Bangladesh's Prime Minister
marks a significant political shift in the country, with implications that
might resonate with the ideological debates tied to the Two-Nation
Theory. Hasina was removed after student-led protests and widespread
violence escalated, fueled by grievances over job quotas, economic
stagnation, and allegations of authoritarianism during her 15-year rule. An
interim government led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has taken
charge, focusing on restoring stability and preparing for elections.

T
he Two-Nation Theory remains relevant in some contexts, particularly in
understanding the ideological foundations of Pakistan and the historical
dynamics of Hindu-Muslim relations. However, the events of 1971 and
the evolving nature of national identity suggest that there are many other
factors remain present, which require very minute inquiry to get understand
that some ideology/identity/doctrine/theory was/is or not the cause of the
problem faced by a nation or state.