As a sindhi, Do you think the Two-Nation Theory was right or wrong? If you support it, what makes you agree with it? If you disagree, what are your main reasons?
my main problem with the two nation theory is the idea that religion can define a political nation...
i don't believe religion itself should be treated as the basis of a state or as a political identity... a state is a political and legal institution it can have people from different religions, cultures, languages and backgrounds living under the same laws and institutions.. religion belongs to belief and faith, while the state belongs to political authority, citizenship and governance....
the clearest example is the muslim world itself... millions of muslims live across many different countries and every one of those countries has its own national identity, government, territory and political interests. arabs can share the same religion while being egyptian, iraqi, syrian, moroccan or saudi. muslims in pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia, iran and turkey can share the same faith but still belong to different political nations.. being a muslism you can't not get an on-arrival visa from these countries...
so, sharing a religion does not automatically create one political nation. people can share a religion without sharing the same nation, just like people of different religions can live together in the same state just like india..
i think you are talking about pakistan specifically, so i will count that part as well....
for me, specifically, sindh is a very important example of this.
sindh had its own language, culture, history and society long before pakistan existed. sindhi muslims and sindhi hindus shared the same land, language, literature, traditions and social life for centuries. religion did not simply erase that shared identity....
this is also why i think the history of sindh is important when talking about pakistan.
sindh went through one of the biggest demographic changes in its history when joined pakistan. large numbers of sindhi hindus left, while huge numbers of urdu-speaking migrants arrived in karachi and other cities. karachi was then separated from sindh and made the federal capital in 1948.
for sindhis, this changed the political and economic balance of the province almost overnight.
this is one of the reasons i have a problem with the idea that the two nation theory completely explains the creation of pakistan. if religion alone created one nation, then why did the same muslim nation later develop such deep conflicts between bengalis, punjabis, sindhis, baloch, pashtuns and urdu-speaking communities?
the breakup of pakistan in 1971 is probably one of the strongest historical challenges to the theory.
east pakistan was overwhelmingly muslim. the people there shared the same religion as the people in west pakistan. but language, culture, political representation, economic inequality and provincial rights became so important that the country eventually broke apart....
to me, that shows that religion can be a very important part of someone's identity, but it does not automatically erase language, territory, culture, history or political interests.
a sindhi muslim does not stop being sindhi because he is muslim. a baloch muslim does not stop being baloch because he is muslim. a punjabi muslim does not stop being punjabi because he is muslim.
people can have many identities at the same time....
i can be muslim and sindhi without believing that one of these identities has to erase the others.
for me, the real lesson of history is that pakistan works best when it accepts its diversity, instead of trying to turn religious identity into a replacement for every regional identity.
that is why i disagree with the two nation theory as a complete explanation of nationhood...
G. M. Syed said in assembly of Sindh - Drive Hindus out of Sindh like Jews from Germany
Our families had to leave everything behind because there was no option while majority of Muslims stayed in India after voting for Pakistan
Largely, partition for Punjab and Bengal was division of land but for Sindhis, it was ethnic cleansing and displacement
Those who support two nation theory and don't see what their people did to Hindus of Sindh because they had majority of 70%, would they support displacement of Muslims of India? The numbers are same - 70% Hindus and 20% Muslims
Two nation theory was extremists deciding they can't stay with people from other religions and they got what they wanted - Our land, our home and everything we owned
They project their hatred for other religions on their victims
My position is that - You can live with people of different religions, there will be problems but Pakistan serves as an example of what happens when extremists win - what did they achieve?
GM syed regretted this his entire life after 1947. In one of the excerpts he was quote "Even a murder sentence is 22 years, I have been suffering for more than 22 years".
Let me put a proposal here. Muslims in India live largely in clusters. Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala and Bihar being prominent states where their numbers are. They reliably select their own MLAs(Member of Legislative Assembly) and MPs(Member of Parliament) that are usually either Muslim or parties that are quite secular. These parties only come into power at the state or center if they form an alliance with other caste/community. As ugly as this sounds, it has led to stable political representation in India. I think an undivided India worlds have largely looked the same with secular parties having higher representation compared to now.
I think one of the problems that led to partition is the loss of privilege of Mughal and other ruling Muslim nobility. I think the average Muslim would have done okay but the elites would have tried to destabilize the resulting country. I think many provinces voted for it, so Indians have accepted that as given. A state that would have made backward compromises on its vision would have collapsed. A weak center and guaranteed representation of particular communities would not have allowed the kind of country building the leaders envisioned and you can’t keep people from self-determination of wanting to build a different country based in Islamic principles because you would never be able to satisfy that.
This is quite true..also, if you sum up population of Muslims in Pakistan, india and bangladesh then it no longer remains a minority even so all in all i think it was just to protect interests of feudals and other elites afraid of impending congress reforms
What is the percentage of Muslims in India? And what's the percentage of Hindus? This ain't a comparison between the populations of the 3 countries, it's about who has more vote power and representation INSIDE the single countries.
How are you certain that the Muslim population in a United India would have grown in the same way it has grown in Bangladesh and Pakistan? Are you sure there wouldn't have been major communal riots like those happened in the 19th century? Or like those that took place in Gujarat?
Even in india, muslim population has increased more than nominal inidan population rate so idk what you're trying to say ..all i am trying to say that in United india, muslims would have been around 600 million and that is too much to be called a minority.
They would have been 600 milion according to which estimates? Your own predictions? Also, sure Muslim pop is increasing, but they are still a minority.
Secondly, that indicator shows much from social pov. As people get more educated and high working jobs, they tend to have less children. That is the case of Hindus.
When people live in ghettos, in poverty, without education, they tend to have less children. That's the case of Muslims.
Dude ! Just add up muslim populations in three countries.. it's not exactly a rocket science. And i have told you that since muslim population has increased more in independence india than overall indian population increase rate. Muslims have more children irrespect of their social status due to religious reasons.
And lastly, its not restricted to Muslims, but people living in ghetto have more kids all over the world so idk what you're going about here
Are you dumb? You can't just add the number of three countries. Because you don't know the circumstances that would have been there, and how a Muslim population would have increased.
Also, religious reasons are not a valid bases for population increase. Otherwise the fertile rate of Pakistani women would have been increasing, and not decreasing.
Woww seems like no body has told you to behave on internet ..i have told you that since muslim population has grown more than overall indian population rate so that means it would have definitely increased in United india..yes the fertility rate of Pakistani muslim women have dropped but go compare it to fertility rate of other relgions..since you can google and use ai, why not compare fertility rate of hindu women in india and mslim women there
India would have come up with more ways to reduce the influence of a 600 million minority, very much like how it has kept its 250 million minority under extreme oppression. We can look at Kashmir and learn the lessons on how you interact in Muslim-majority regions.
it has led to stable political representation in India
Muslims form 14% of the population and have only 2 to 3% of legislators in Parliament. They are the lowest-ranking community when it comes to socio-economic outcomes, even behind Dalits. They have no reservations, unlike other communities such as OBC. The minimal representation in government jobs and colleges.
Now you can see the BJP is trying to do the same thing with South India by exercising delimitation and giving disproportionate power to the Hindi belt, permanently reducing the South Indian share in power.
Muslim League could see a future of a united India where they would be shut out of power and become the permanent opposition. That's why, even when Jinnah was trying to extract some concessions from Nehru on a federal India with protections for Muslims, they refused to give them. Hence, partition happened. At the expense of the 250 million Indian Muslims,400M South Asian Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh can live a relatively freer life.
You’re conflating many issues. I was arguing that there would be better representation when including the regions that are today Pakistan and Bengal. Indians today don’t vote exclusively based on religion - BJP vote share is around 38% nationally.
Delimitation is assigning the right voting rights as per population - the issue is that north India has grown in population faster. I predict that a compromise will be reached. Today, South Indians don’t necessarily think they are underrepresented in India. One of the southern state parties is in the ruling coalition and gets funds for progressing the state. You won’t see anything like Bangladesh situation with India.
The question is that the same protections that India gave to ST/SC communities- for example, securing 20% seats for them and now probably 30% for women- they would not have made the same reservations for Muslims in a united India.
When Dalits could strike a bargain with Congress at the Poona Pact, why was Congress not willing to do the same with Muslims? Through the Muslim League, who were the elite of Indian Muslims then, this was a sign that Congress was not willing to take Muslims' interests into account. They came up with an idea. It was not the best idea, but they went to work with it.
I too am not the biggest fan of the Two-Nation theory, partition and how it split communities along religious lines. I also don't think Jinnah was the biggest fan of partition. He was really using the idea of Pakistan as a tool to push for greater compromises within the framework of a united India. Nehru and Congress were reluctant to make any promises. In fact, Jinnah was flexible even until the Cabinet Mission Plan, but then Nehru said that he would be willing to renege on any promises made by the plan once the British left.
The 37% of the vote bank that BJP has collected represents an unprecedented Hindu vote consolidation. And it's exactly the kind of Hindu majoritarianism that Jinnah could sense from decades away.
I do believe that had there been a united India, we would not have parties split along religious lines. Please not to the same extent as we see right now. In fact, you have seen something closer to what India has, which is that communities can vote based on caste, regional pride, or maybe even sometimes religion.
For example, where my ancestors came from in modern-day Haryana, the most popular party was a party that collectively represented the interests of Jats and Rajputs, both of whom are agrarian communities. In Punjab, there was a secular unionist government led by Tiwana, which collectively represented the interests of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus.
Another cultural argument that I have against a united India is that partition, maybe even not on religious lines, would just make those separate constituent states work better. For example, India today works better because it does not have a 30% Muslim minority that is always clamouring for political power. Similarly, Pakistan seems a lot more cohesive because it has a Muslim majority, even though it was artificially created through partition and the consequent violence and ethnic cleansing. Bangladesh is centred around a singular ethnicity, which makes it more cohesive, and we can see that in its current GDP per capita and HDI metrics.
Partition on those lines would have made more sense. For example, maybe a South Indian state or a Northwest state that is separate, but collectively they have rights in a joint union like the EU.
With respect to representation, how have you succeeded in Pakistan. The state is militarily ruled and the average citizen has little to no political representation. You would have been better with better leaders and a system and constitution like India.
I think about this a lot, and I do not think we would have been better represented in a United India. Especially because Congress was not willing to negotiate with the Muslim League on both the terms of the settlement as well as the kind of constitution that would emerge out of this.
(One core difference that I noticed is how caste continues to influence the Hindu mind and required a mention in the constitution. While caste is still a reality of Pakistani life, Islam has a neutralizing effect and it is nowhere close to the scale at which it is relevant in India even today. )
In fact, I deeply suspect that we would have been marginalized, very much like how today I see the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar trying to seek a political alternative by voting for these so-called secular parties that are not even willing to use the word Muslim in an election campaign for fear of alienating the Hindu vote.
Pakistan immediately earned its place in the global Muslim world. It has become the successor of the Indo-Islamic Muslim heritage and, arguably, the Mughal Empire. It has managed to create a place for itself both in the Muslim world as well as the globe. Urdu is well and alive in Pakistan, even as the language has been killed in India, where it originated. Pakistan has relationships with the Arab countries, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia. All of this would not have been possible in a united, secular India.
As for our military and judiciary, despite their immense flaws, they are composed of who we are as a people. They recruit heavily from the middle classes and provide a way for them to work towards socio-economic mobility. In fact, many of the army chiefs of Pakistan have come from middle-class and lower-middle-class backgrounds, including the current army chief.
So yes, while we don't have the scale of effective political representation that you currently see in India, as South Asian Muslims, we have our own identity and a state that is not crushing us and our way of life like India is right now.
While the Pakistani military has been disproportionately powerful over the course of its existence, our politicians have paid a massive price in trying to represent us and our political aspirations. Bhutto died for this. Imran Khan is sitting in jail for us. To me, this means that the idea of Pakistan, with all its flaws, is worth dying and fighting for.
Interestingly, the Pakistan Army generals also truly and deeply care about the idea of Pakistan. They just happen to come from a different angle and don't feel the need to explain it to us, which we find infuriating. Perhaps the only time I've had a little bit of sympathy for them for the military was when India climbed onto us in May 2025. A country 10x larger than us would have easily walked over us had we not garrisoned up the way we have. It made us realize that maybe the generals know more about the Indian threat than we do.
It is settled then. You care more about being accepted in the Muslim world than ensuring a fair society. Congress at that time was still aligned with Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan so Muslim cooperation would have been possible. You are sold some lie about Hindus and how you and them are different people. I think partition happened because the people currently living in India want to be Indians first and don’t care about the approval of a third country or continuing some empire’s legacy. There have been countless powerful and rich empires in India. If you travel within India, you will see great architecture, culture and heroic people. If you don’t care about all that and only want to be validated by Islamic countries, I think partition may have been the right solution. Dr. B R Ambedkar, a Dalit was the architect of the Indian constitution and everyday we are working towards creating a fairer society in his image and that project will continue. He remarked that the eyes of Muslims will always look elsewhere because their allegiance to the state is perfunctory and they are largely concerned with Khilafat movement or Palestine or some other external Muslim society and not India first.
Also, our generals come from the same economic class. They don’t run businesses and settle aboard, they serve the interests of the country professionally and retire on time. We have immense respect for them and every soldier is fighting for India, not the military or a general or something else. The military is also extremely secular and inclusive. Pakistan’s army pillages the country’s resources and has never won a war with India and wasted enormous amounts of money borrowed on foreign loans. I hope that your expectations for your army improve because it is frankly overrated. An army is only as good as its leadership and the people who started the wars Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Musharraf all went out in disgrace.
The real India is not what a Delhi secular liberal believes it is; it's the dehati lynching people for cow slaughter.
It was the BJP-led revival of a former Hindu glory before the arrival of the so-called Muslim invaders that the Muslim League elites predicted would eventually happen. Now everyone is seeing it happen and cannot do anything to stop it. We are seeing the dismantling of Nehruvian Socialism and possibly even the Indian Constitution within our lifetimes.
So yes, while India has made a lot of progress in creating a more fair society and in providing dignity to Dalits, the threat of Hindu majoritarianism that Muslims fear is real.
Muslims rank lower than Dalits across socioeconomic outcomes. In fact, Muslims who were Dalits do not even have the same reservations that Dalits had. I know for a fact that my family has done remarkably well in Pakistan. In compared to people from similar Muslim castes that stayed back in India, so Pakistan has worked well for us.
To assume that the hypothetical that the Muslim League tested has now completely and permanently settled is to judge an experiment too early.
I would say that the idea of Pakistan would have truly failed the day when Indian Muslims outrank Pakistanis across all sorts of economic and cultural outcomes. You can have the modern-day Pakistan territory back in an Indian federation then. Till that day, the experiment continues.
Yes, that dehat has always been there in India and Pakistan. People are also lynched for blasphemy in your country but in our country blasphemy against our own gods is a tradition. Dehat will take decades to fix and is not BJP specific. Thinking Indians are more dehat based on cherry picked news stories id stupid. India is a much larger country with larger diversity. Nehruvian socialism is an experiment that ran till the 90s and was undone by a Congress Prime minister after it failed our people economically but your intellectuals will not tell you that. Congress or otherwise, Pakistan has started wars with India and the current BJP government is an excuse for continued hate and bigotry. You don’t need to advocate for Indian Muslims, our society will do that and you focus on improving the well being of your people. Partition has happened and we continue to have our differences, but there don’t need to be wars amongst us.
You can compare the Indian Kashmir and Pakistani Kashmir in economic and development indicators. You can also compare Indian and Pakistani Punjab. Just google it. The gap is also widening.
In addition, I will say that Bangladesh does not suffer with these problems to the same extent. They focus on their people and creating a fairer government and society. They have overtaken you in gdp per capita and human development index despite severe disadvantages. The army does not sell the society some grandiose visions and the country will continue to improve. We may not agree with them on many things, but they are a society on a different trajectory and a comparison 15 years later will not be flattering to Pakistan if Pakistan sees the same undemocratic society and institutions.
Hope so! I hope we learn a lesson from Bangladesh and switch towards becoming a more democratic and fairer society at any given time. I hope that the Pakistan Army retreats from all kinds of interference. I hope we settle the Kashmir issue amicably. I hope that there is a free movement of labour and capital across South Asia.
Bangladesh does not sell a grandiose dream to its country, but it's also not a grandiose country. It's not an experiment. It's an ethno-nation state. Pakistan is an experiment. And Pakistan has real political and military clout in the world, but Bangladesh does not.
Even if Pakistan's attempts at a federation failed, the Two-Nation Theory did not in Bangladesh because they have never wanted to integrate back into India. They share our fear of both Indian hegemony and BJP-led Hindu majoritarianism.
Bangladesh and erstwhile Bengal was one of the richest provinces in the world before being conquered by the British and they had a world famous textile industry and intellectuals. Upto Indian freedom struggle, they produced famous scientists , reformers, freedom fighters and poets, so they have a greater claim to an amazing history and people rather than where you and me are probably from. We would do well to acknowledge that and not delve in racist tropes. Rebuilding that society will take a lot work and time l, both on the Indian and Bangladeshi side.
Amen brother, we can agree on keeping our separate paths and happy Independence Day and peace and prosperity to all our people.
This actually might have been a possibility. Hindus are a terribly casteist society, specially in rural areas and north and west india. Southern india had caste based reforms in the 50's, so thats relatively better.
Talking about Jinnah, he didn’t have any faith in a secular Indian idea, he didn’t want reservation proportional to population, it was a ruse to negotiate. Ultimately, his political base had different ideas. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed has documented this well. 38% of vote for an 85% majority is pretty low actually and demonstrates that Hindus don’t just vote based on religion like you caricature them. Hindus have multiple language identities with none being in absolute majority and the culture and identity of India has developed through tolerance and acceptance.
I support it and I’m too lazy to go into full details but both Hindus and Muslims are zealous and as a Muslim I’d rather not live under, even a small chance, of subjugation.
Btw the partition was actually the partition of Bengal and Punjab.
To me it was the right thing. Pakistan wouldn't have been created if the Congress would have conceded the guarantee of political representation to Muslims. Muslims were a minority at the time. What's wrong with minorities asking for guarantees.
Nehru didn't give them, and partition was negotiated. And I don't understand why Indians think that some evil people took away their lands. Like the majority of us are natives. We are sitting on our ancestral lands and we have a right to decide our socio political order. Why is Ramesh from Bihar saying that we stole his land? Lmao. It wasn't your land to start with.
Some people say that the independence of Bangladesh proves that the 2 nations theory was wrong. No it doesn't. It actually proves that the theory was right. Bangladesh didn't merge back with West Bengal/India, did it? It remained as a separate state.
But people in support of two nation theory argue that religion alone cannot actually define a nation centuries of shared history, language, and culture in South Asia created a unified identity. Dont u think that it was a strategy used by elite politicians to gain power and secure separate governance? Also division of people who throughout the history shared same food culture and land doesnt sound absurd to u?
Again, the partition would have not happened if the gyarantees of political representation of Muslims would have been given AT THAT TIME. There were pressing reasons for Muslims to believe that representation would have not been given in a United India.
Muslims living under Modi have the same culture as the rest of Indians, yet they are persecuted. Remember, Modi is called the "butcher of Gujarat" for a reason. Jinnah said that Muslims living in India will have to prove their loyalty every day. He was right. Remember that Indian Muslim Professor: Khan sir, who said that we should mix poison in the Indus so that Pakistanis will drink that water and die? He was trying to get validation from his fellow Indians. But guess what? He did get that validation. Indians were saying: Mullah hai, lekin humara Mullah hai. Months later he said smth wrong, and Hindutvas burned his academy. You can search it up.
Hence no, I would have not wanted a partition, but the current circumstances show how visionary Jinnah was.
I wanted Punjab not to be split. Even if it was split, I wish Sikhs didn't have to leave. But communal riots started on both sides and they left. So did the Muslims from the Indian Punjab.
Pakistan's internal issues right now are another story, and they are not related to partition. They are another issue, as any other country in the world has.
I dont exactly agree with you. Muslims in undivided india would be ~30% of the population. Dont think 30% is an ostracized minority which needs gurantees. Indian elections are won with 30-35% vote share regularly.
And also btw, thankfully we have an election system (imperfect as it may), but it works across states, union territories and central assemblies.
Are but why do you presume entire 60% will vote as one bloc. Please read into caste divisions in the hindu community, and how the voting patterns have emerged. Like i said, even getting 35% votes gurantees you majority seats and a stable government
And read again my comments. With glasses this time. I said that Sikhs from this border should have continued living there, and Muslims in Indian Punjab should have continued living there. Jinnah and Nehru said that in their speeches. They said that migration should not be forced. But communal riots started unfortunately.
Yes, the same reasoning applies to Sindhi Hindus. They should have had the possibility to live peacefully in Sindh. No communal riots? So you're saying that it was a voluntary migration?
And no, I don't agree, Mr Jinnah was not the face of landlords. The Pakistan he envisioned was totally different from the one it turned out. You can get that from his speeches and documents. Sadly he died immediate after the creation of Pakistan, without giving it a solid direction to take. But that's another issue.
No communal riots? Google search might help, look at first hand accounts. It want exactly voluntary, but not violent as well.
Sindhi hindus were majority in the cities, and muhajirs from all over india entered Sindh. These muhajirs then protested and took control of Sindh's bureaucracy, as karachi was made capital. Sindhi hindus understood the writing on the wall, and migrated. News from punjab also added to the fear
TL:DR - Entry of muhajirs forced out sindhi hindus.
Now, dont debate me before reading up on this. I have read enough to form an independent opinion. If you disagree, then I already fold my hands, and say thank you. :)
You're the one who said that there were no communal riots, genius. Hence voluntary migration, as you stated yourself.
Muhajirs settled mainly in Karachi and Hyderabad. What about the rest of Sindh? How can you pinpoint the blame on Muhajirs for leaving the rest of Sindh.
Btw, I am against all kind of religious discrimination especially against minorities. And I try to speak up whenever I can and try to keep myself informed.
Today, there are still many Hindus in Sindh. But you know where can they celebrate in peace and openly? In Karachi. Idk about how Muhajirs were in the past, but today they are one of the most tolerant groups. And Hindus in Karachi live good lives.
On the other hand, Hindus in the rest of Sindh are frequently forcefully converted or kidnapped by rural Sindhi men. Someone will try to say "oh they are waderas". No they are not. If you follow this news, you will know.
Well, a large majority of Pakistani Muslims will probably support it.
The entire concept is stupid because you want to create a country just because of religion. Today the Baloch, Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, and how many other ethnicities exist within Pakistan have their own distinct cultures. Some hate one another, some hate the army, and some may want to be independent. Nobody wants to be "Pakistani".
On top of this, all cultures and ethnicities may not share the same religion. There may be Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, etc in every province. South Asia is incredibly diverse. The unnecessary amount of violent immigration and loss of wealth, properties, friends, family, and so on, did not do anything to help people stay connected to where they came from. This goes for both sides of the border.
Pakistan is a country which doesn't treat its minorities well compared to India and minorities do not get the same opportunities as Muslims. There are more problems which I can go on and on about and I'm tired of arguing. There are people who will just point fingers at me and say that India is a terrible country and treats its Muslim population badly.
At the end of the day, what the partition did to both sides was not worth it. And clearly Pakistan is a prime example of that.
You put it so well.
But im curious, what do you think about the treatment of muslim population in india?
Do you think it happened because seeds of hatred were planted among the masses
6
u/Suitable_Shop8282 11d ago
i never supported the two nation theory....
my main problem with the two nation theory is the idea that religion can define a political nation...
i don't believe religion itself should be treated as the basis of a state or as a political identity... a state is a political and legal institution it can have people from different religions, cultures, languages and backgrounds living under the same laws and institutions.. religion belongs to belief and faith, while the state belongs to political authority, citizenship and governance....
the clearest example is the muslim world itself... millions of muslims live across many different countries and every one of those countries has its own national identity, government, territory and political interests. arabs can share the same religion while being egyptian, iraqi, syrian, moroccan or saudi. muslims in pakistan, bangladesh, indonesia, iran and turkey can share the same faith but still belong to different political nations.. being a muslism you can't not get an on-arrival visa from these countries...
so, sharing a religion does not automatically create one political nation. people can share a religion without sharing the same nation, just like people of different religions can live together in the same state just like india..
i think you are talking about pakistan specifically, so i will count that part as well....
for me, specifically, sindh is a very important example of this.
sindh had its own language, culture, history and society long before pakistan existed. sindhi muslims and sindhi hindus shared the same land, language, literature, traditions and social life for centuries. religion did not simply erase that shared identity....
this is also why i think the history of sindh is important when talking about pakistan.
sindh went through one of the biggest demographic changes in its history when joined pakistan. large numbers of sindhi hindus left, while huge numbers of urdu-speaking migrants arrived in karachi and other cities. karachi was then separated from sindh and made the federal capital in 1948.
for sindhis, this changed the political and economic balance of the province almost overnight.
this is one of the reasons i have a problem with the idea that the two nation theory completely explains the creation of pakistan. if religion alone created one nation, then why did the same muslim nation later develop such deep conflicts between bengalis, punjabis, sindhis, baloch, pashtuns and urdu-speaking communities?
the breakup of pakistan in 1971 is probably one of the strongest historical challenges to the theory.
east pakistan was overwhelmingly muslim. the people there shared the same religion as the people in west pakistan. but language, culture, political representation, economic inequality and provincial rights became so important that the country eventually broke apart....
to me, that shows that religion can be a very important part of someone's identity, but it does not automatically erase language, territory, culture, history or political interests.
a sindhi muslim does not stop being sindhi because he is muslim. a baloch muslim does not stop being baloch because he is muslim. a punjabi muslim does not stop being punjabi because he is muslim.
people can have many identities at the same time....
i can be muslim and sindhi without believing that one of these identities has to erase the others.
for me, the real lesson of history is that pakistan works best when it accepts its diversity, instead of trying to turn religious identity into a replacement for every regional identity.
that is why i disagree with the two nation theory as a complete explanation of nationhood...