The Two-Nation Theory had been the outcome of the political imagination specific to the events of the 20th Century
While subjecting Pakistan Resolution to a critical scrutiny, Quaid-i-Azam’s presidential address has been read and quoted but not critically analysed by the scholars of history, barring a few.
On that address, Faisal Devji has drawn a few inferences which are significant. Devji detects hardly any reference to history in that ‘act of speech’ that proved a page-turner in the annals of history.
According to his analysis, the historical depth to the discourse of Muslim separatism was provided by Iqbal through his poetry and lectures, which of course calls for a separate debate. But reverting to the earlier point pertaining to Quaid-i-Azam, I would try to flesh out what Devji says in several of his writings.
As meticulous and precise as Quaid-i-Azam was in his speeches and statements, while contextualising the principal argument of his speech he abstained from much harking back in historical time. While invoking references from history, he didn’t venture beyond the narrow spatial and temporal limits as the following quote from his address demonstrates. “History has presented to us many examples, such as the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Czechoslovakia and Poland. History has also shown to us many geographical tracts, much smaller than the sub-continent of India, which otherwise might have been called one country, but which have been divided into as many states as there are nations inhabiting them. [The] Balkan Peninsula comprises as many as seven or eight sovereign states. Likewise, the Portuguese and the Spanish stand divided in the Iberian Peninsula.”
What is noteworthy here is the historical reference to post-World War I Europe showing Quaid’s interest in the issues of relatively contemporaneous nature. He avidly followed the political events and the issues of international significance, but he hardly had any serious interest in history as such.
He confined himself to relating the ‘frivolities’ and the ‘atrocities’ of the Congress ministries, formed in seven provinces in the wake of 1937 elections. While alluding to discrimination by the Congress ministries vis a vis Muslims, he said, “We had many difficulties to face from January 1939 right up to the declaration of war. We had to face the Vidya Mandir in Nagpur. We had to face the Wardha Scheme all over India. We had to face ill-treatment and oppression to Muslims in the Congress-governed provinces. We had to face the treatment meted out to Muslims in some of the Indian States, such as Jaipur and Bhavnagar. We had to face a vital issue that arose in that little state of Rajkot.”
In the rest of the speech, he cited Gandhi and used his statements to substantiate his point concerning the incongruity of the Hindus and the Muslims in their respective ways of life and religious beliefs. He also mentioned, though tangentially, Gopal Acharya and Babu Rajendra Prasad. However, while underscoring religious/denominational differences and then situating those differences, Quaid-i-Azam cited Lala Lajpat Rai, a leading figure among Hindu extremists and one of the chief architects of Hindu Mahasabha.
The Quaid-i-Azam, in his address, quoted from Lala Lajpat Rai’s letter to Mr CR Das, which underlined some concerns that niggled the former with respect to the Hindu-Muslim unity. That letter was written in the 1920s and had been produced in a book published by one Indra Prakas’ and that was how that letter came to light. That letter explicitly highlighted mutual exclusivity between the two communities which is as follows: “I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders. But what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.”
Later in his speech, Quaid-i-Azam quoted Lajpat Rai yet again: “I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity or desirability of Hindu-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders. But what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis? The leaders cannot override them. Are we then doomed? I hope not. I hope your learned mind and wise head will find some way out of this difficulty.”
In his speech, what is starkly evident is that Quaid-i-Azam propounded the theory about the Hindus and the Muslims as two separate nations from the perspective of Lala Lajpat Rai. One may also argue that Quaid-i-Azam, while arguing like that might have intended to put the onus of Muslim separatism on the biased and discriminatory attitude of the Hindu political leaders. If this point is conceded, then the whole debate regarding Two Nation Theory turns on its head. The universality of the theory can easily be questioned.
If looked at this section of the speech which, of course, is the most important, several questions can be raised on the primordiality of the Two-Nation Theory. What becomes succinct from that historic speech is that the Two-Nation Theory had been the outcome of the political imagination specific to the events of the 20th Century. That constituted the concluding assertion of the Quaid.
“The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither inter-marry nor inter-dine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] 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; their heroes are different and different episode[s]. 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 up for the government of such a state.”
Can we say that this conclusion was drawn only after the passionate perusal of Lajpat Rai’s version of the incongruity that the two communities felt for each other? Some learned and academic response to this question will be highly appreciated.
The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore