Pakistan and two-nation theory: Method in Gen Munir's madness

First Post

18-05-2025

Gen Asim Munir's statement wasn't simply a wink-wink dog whistle to activate anti-India extremists but a big flashing green signal to them to go into action read more
Pakistan's Army Chief General Syed Asim Munir stands on a military tank speaking with army troops. Amidst India's precise strikes on Pakistan's air bases, reports say that Munir was shifted to a fortified bunker. File image/AFP
There are ideological absurdities—and then there's the two-nation theory which led to India's Partition on the absurd basis that Muslims and Hindus could not co-exist peacefully under the same roof as they constituted two separate and irreconcilable nationalities on the basis of their faith.
After more than 75 years during which it was thought that it was long dead and buried, it has been raked up again by Pakistan to justify its anti-India (read anti-Hindu) activities that drove the two countries to the brink of a full-blown recently.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It's no coincidence that days before the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in which 26 Hindu tourists were gunned down by Pakistan-linked terrorists, Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir made a gratuitous and provocative reference to the two-nation theory saying that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations and urged his audience (Pakistan Military Academy cadets) to share the story of Pakistan's creation with their children.
His rabble-rousing remarks came completely out of the blue. In retrospect, it's clear that it wasn't simply a wink-wink dog whistle to activate anti-India extremists but a big flashing green signal to them to go into action.
And they did.
Munir returned to the theme after the Pahalgam massacre as if to give a thumbs-up to his boys. The two-nation theory, he said, was based 'on the fundamental belief that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations, not one'.
'Muslims are distinct from Hindus in all aspects of life—religion, customs, traditions, thinking and aspirations…Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different. That's where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations, we are not one nation,' he said, seeking to mobilise Pakistani public opinion against 'Hindu' India.
Invoking the all-too-familiar bogey of threat to Pakistan's security and sovereignty from a Hindu India, he said in a media interview: 'Our forefathers have sacrificed immensely, and we have sacrificed a lot for the creation of this country, and we know how to defend it.'
And should someone may have missed the sermon, he added: 'My dear brothers and sisters and sons and daughters, please don't forget the story of Pakistan and don't forget to narrate the story of Pakistan to your next generation, so that their bond with Pakistan never weakens.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Munir's rant predictably drew a strong reaction from across the political spectrum in India, besides of course a strong condemnation from the government which called it an attempt to divide Hindus and Muslims.
Media reports quoted unnamed 'top official sources' as saying that his statement was intended to 'rally a united Muslim bloc against India, calling upon radical elements, extremists, and terrorists to launch attacks'.
Gen Munir's bid to resurrect a defunct doctrine is seen as a way of presenting himself as an ideological heir to Jinnah and Zia-ul-Haq. 'In trying to cast himself as heir to Jinnah and Zia, Munir is embalming a vision of Pakistan that no longer serves its people—and driving it toward becoming a reckless, war-making garrison state,' wrote former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria.
For all this, however, there's an elephant in the room (to which I'll come in a bit) that nobody wants to notice for fear of upsetting the liberal romantic vision of a multi-religious and multicultural society where everyone irrespective of who they're happily rubs along.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Once, I also innocently shared their sunny vision endlessly citing our proud tradition of Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb—the composite high culture of northern India representing a syncretic fusion of Hindu and Muslim cultural elements, embracing language, art, music, literature, and down to social customs.
Traces of that tehzeeb still linger on, but the old generation of Hindus and Muslims that valued and cherished it is fading away. And simultaneously, there's an alarming hardening of religious and cultural identities on both sides fuelling a Hindutva -Sharia clash.
As a result, Hindu-Muslim relations are at an inflexion point after a post-Partition lull. This is not a sudden development or caused entirely by a few rotten apples. It's important to remember that for much of the past 75 years the secular Congress party was incharge of community relations.
So, most of the damage happened on its watch, though it's true that lately the distrust between the two communities has deepened markedly to the point that they're barely on talking terms.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It's easy to point fingers at each other, but there's a deeper problem at the heart of the crisis. And that brings us to the elephant in the room mentioned above.
The reality is that Hindus and Muslims do inhabit different and distinct religious and cultural spheres, though it doesn't necessarily mean that they can't live under the same roof—occasional pin pricks notwithstanding.
Addressing the 19th session of Hindu Mahasabha in Ahmedabad, V.D. Savarkar said in 1937: 'There are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation. On the contrary, there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Muslims, in India.'
Later when in the 1940s, Jinnah articulated the idea that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate nations with distinct religious, philosophical, social, cultural, and literary traditions, Savarkar endorsed it .
In a speech in Nagpur on August 15, 1943: 'I have no quarrel with Mr Jinnah's two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations."
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Even the venerable B.R. Ambedkar recognised the 'historical, religious, cultural and social factors' behind Hindu-Muslim tensions in his book, Pakistan, Or the Partition of India, published in 1945. He wrote that the assumption that Hindus and Muslims could live under one state if they were distinct nations was but 'an empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree'.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at also enthusiastically supported Jinnah and his two-nation theory. In fact, Chaudary Zafarullah Khan, an Ahmadi leader, drafted the Lahore Resolution calling for the creation of Pakistan. How ironic therefore that today they are not recognised as Muslims in Pakistan and face persecution.
So, clearly, back then there was a much wider, if grudging, recognition of the Hindu-Muslim culture clash than is acknowledged today, especially by liberals.
What should really worry community and political leaders, however, is that the two-nation doctrine still retains emotional appeal for sections of religio-nationalists on both sides of the communal divide.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
And it was this latent sense of separateness that Gen Munir was hoping to tap into. However, while he succeeded in motivating Muslim extremists in his own country leading to the Pahalgam attack, his strategy failed when it came to deepening the Hindu-Muslim divide in India.
On the contrary, it had the opposite effect uniting the two communities against a common enemy still mentally and ideologically stuck in a time-warp while India moved on.
But beware: there are too many Munirs around waiting to exploit religious sentiments by exhuming old corpses.
Hasan Suroor is author of 'Unmasking Secularism: Why We Need A New Hindu-Muslim Deal'. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.