Home Open space Invoking Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory To Oppose CAB Is Utterly Nonsensical

Invoking Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory To Oppose CAB Is Utterly Nonsensical

The two nation theory was proposed by V.D. Savarkar who proclaimed that Hindus and Muslims constitute two separate nations. The Hindu right wing across party lines lapped up to his assertion and launched a relentless campaign to curtail any bargain with the imperial powers that would provide Muslims with equal citizenship rights.

312
0

With the passage of Citizenship Amendment Bill in the lower house of the parliament the jinn of the two nation theory has once again come out of the bottle.

Nearly all the opponents of Citizenship Amendment Bill are calling it  revival of Jinnah’s two nation theory whereas the fact is the two nation theory was imposed on Jinnah by the Hindu Mahasabha, RSS and its sympathizers in Congress. Jinnah was a thorough Gandhian in his outlook right until his death. The only thing he wanted and was justified in demanding so was proportionate representation for the minorities, the denial of which from the majority community led him to side with the demand for a separate state. Seventy years on the secular state of India has yet not  delivered on the promise of socio-economic equality to the minorities of this country which is enshrined in constitution. The solution as Jinnah foresaw still remains the same i.e. proportionate representation in all walks of public life. Hence silencing or undermining the legitimate demands of the marginalized community  by using the bogey of  two nation theory or dragging Jinnah in the debate while arguing against fascism is utterly nonsensical. This shall serve no purpose except for advancing BJP and Sangh’s cause. It’s high time the liberals stop making an enemy out of Jinnah for their sins and that of the far right.

The two nation theory was proposed by V.D. Savarkar who proclaimed that Hindus and Muslims constitute two separate nations. The Hindu right wing across party lines lapped up to his assertion and launched a relentless campaign to curtail any bargain with the imperial powers that would provide Muslims with equal citizenship rights. The Muslim representatives with their back on the wall fought vehemently against this design of the fascist forces. Several rounds of negotiation were held to assuade the differences between the two parties, the end  result of which always was a deadlock. The Hindu far right was rigid in its stance and not ready to concede an inch from it’s stated position of Hindu Rashtra and Akhand Bharat. The Muslims persuasion and the liberal reconciliatory efforts in light of fascist adamant behaviour went in vain.

There is however a third dimension to this debate that needs attention. If Mohammad Ali Jinnah indeed believed in diversity and in creation of an egalitarian state what made him side with the voice for Pakistan. The same question arises for Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as well who held parallel political stature with Jinnah and same ideological inclinations. Why did he agree to the demand for partition ?

The answer to this controversial question lies in the pre independence fading global political clout of the Great Britain. Britain’s power after world war II was nowhere in comparison to that of the United States of America or even USSR which made it untenable to run the subcontinent that was already boiling over for the sake of independence. When the Muslim parties to the negotiation realized  that sooner rather than later the Britishers are goin to leave, they went restless. It is here that the path of struggle for Citizenship rights gave way to a popular demand for a separate state. Many scholars have also argued that the Britishers in their fading hour of glory wanted to make the country politically weaker and hence sowed the seeds of strife. This they believed would secure their supremacy as the strongest member of the Commonwealth of Nations and would limit the growth of its former colony.

The idea of India being independent in the foreseeable future led to tectonic realignment of political positions. Jinnah gave up on his demand for proportionate representation and became the flag bearer for a separate state. Here again some scholars believe that his shift in stance was equally propelled by a desire to lead a country  and community of whatever land mass he would be able to negotiate.  It was the same with Jawaharlal Nehru who fell for the charms of becoming independent India’s top most  leader and sacrificed at its altar the unity of the country.

Still despite Jinnah’s and Nehru’s political shifts it were not them who were responsible for partition. However it is also true that the Hindu far right never desired such an outcome. Forever their demand was to subjugate Muslims to second class citizens in their greater fatherland which was Akhand Bharat. Interestingly their intimate desire remains the same and is the stated goal of their ideological patriarch the RSS.

The real skeletons of the partition ironically lay not in coffins they are repeatedly dug from. Had Muslims not got restless after repeated failures in their fight for proportionate representation, and opted for a separate state instead, perhaps the contours of politics in South Asia would have been completely different now. Perhaps we would still be struggling for independence from the Britishers. But,  perhaps the minorities would not be feeling as powerless.

Had Jinnah and Nehru not succumbed to the human desire for power and prestige perhaps there would  still be scope for negotiation today. A grossly unconstitutional and communal Citizenship Amendment Bill would certainly not have been passed without equal contestation. The events of the past few days where a brute majority in parliament has boldly been used to rip apart the constitution’s basic structure that guarantees amongst other things secularism has revived the pain of partition amongst the country’s Muslims. Despite being significant in number they have been systematically reduced to the ranks of serfs.

LEAVE A REPLY