Redefining Pakistan’s Two Nation Theory
For all our lives we’ve been taught that the two-nation theory is based on the fact that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct nations and therefore cannot coexist as one — hence the formation of two different homelands. But is this actually true? If it is, why did East Pakistan secede to become Bangladesh? Why then does Jammu & Kashmir continue to aspire to join Pakistan? Why do millions of Hindus still reside in Sindh?[1][2] Why do millions of Muslims still reside in India? Is the two nation theory really based around a Muslim-Hindu divide or is it something much deeper and complex?
To me, the two-nation theory in its present definition is flawed — in the sense that it is too superficial and doesn’t explain the ground realities of our region. There are indeed two nations in the subcontinent, but these two nations are not Muslim and Hindu, but rather Indus and Gangetic.
Indus Valley vs Ganges Plain
The Indus[a] and Gangetic cultures developed over a period of 5000 years along the River Indus and River Ganges respectively. The Harappan Civilization of the Indus Valley in Pakistan is among the oldest and largest in the ancient world, and is often compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt for being one of the world’s earliest human civilizations.[3][4] A less advanced and smaller civilization also developed along the River Ganges in the Ganges plain of modern-day North India. The cultures that arose from these two rivers essentially created the two-nation theory — this was long before any Hinduism and Islam even existed. The reality is that the two-nation theory is based on culture and not religion. While religion plays a role, it’s not the prime differentiating factor.
Remove Islam and Hinduism from the subcontinent and remove all the political boundaries between Pakistan and the Republic of India, and you would still have two nations.
Think about it — have you ever wondered how strikingly similar the people and cultures of western India are to Pakistan? Regions like Kutch (in Gujarat), Thar (in Rajasthan) and Indian Punjab?[5][6][7]
This is no coincidence — these regions (Kutch, Thar and Indian Punjab) were traditionally bound to the River Indus and developed Indus cultures similar to those found in Sindh and Punjab today. Kutch is more culturally and historically related to Sindh than Gujarat, with Kutchi language being considered a dialect of Sindhi language. Similarly, the Thar desert region of Rajasthan is more culturally and historically related to the Cholistan region of Punjab and Sindh than Rajasthan. As for Punjab, it’s a forgone conclusion that Punjabis in India feel more closer to Punjabis in Pakistan than any ethnic group within India.[8]
The same differences between the Indus and Gangetic nations can be used to understand East Bengal. From 1947 to 1971, this region was an oddity to most Pakistanis. Despite us sharing a similar religion, the peoples and cultures of West Pakistan never really understood the people and culture of East Pakistan. They spoke a completely different language, used a different alphabet, ate different food, wore different clothing.[9] If anything, most of us viewed East Pakistan as a cultural extension of India. This shouldn’t come to much of a surprise — Bengal falls within the River Ganges basin, and hence is considered a Gangetic nation.
While politics indeed played a big part in the debacle of 1971, subconsciously it was this split in culture (Indus Pakistan vs Gangetic Bengal) that ultimately led to the conflict of interest between East Pakistan and West Pakistan, and hence the creation of Bangladesh in 1971.
This then also explains why Jammu & Kashmir continues to have a strong cultural association with Pakistan. Jammu shares closer culturally affinity with southern Azad Jammu & Kashmir districts and northern Punjab. The Kashmir Valley share more culturally similarities too with neigbouring Pashtuns and Punjabis in Pakistan. The reason again is simple. Since Jammu and Kashmir are Indus nations, they show more affinity towards their Indus cousins in Pakistan rather than India.[10]
So how did religion come to define the two-nation theory? There’s three important factors we need to address:
#1. Aryan migration, Harappan-Aryan merger & Vedic Indus culture
As the Aryan people migrated into the Indus Valley between 1800 BCE to 1000 BCE, along with them came their distinctive religious traditions and practices.[11] We know that during this same period, the Indus Valley (or Harappan) Civilization was undergoing a downfall. Evidence suggests, that the remaining Harappan people and migrating Aryan people merged together, giving rise to a new Indo-Aryan or Vedic Civilization. This civilization consisted of:
- Vedic tribes (a merger of Harappan and Aryan peoples)
- Vedic culture (a merger of Harappan and Aryan cultures)
- Vedic religion (a merger between Harappan and Aryan religions)
Evidence pointing towards a merger is still debated among researchers, however this view is beginning to gain traction.[12][13][14][15][16]
Eventually Vedic tribes formed during the period between 1500 BCE to 500 BCE. These tribes were a pastoral society centered exclusively in the Indus Valley in a few dozen kingdoms such as the Sindhu, Kashmira, Swat/Gandhara and Kamboja to name a few.[17]
Contrary to popular belief, the Vedic culture and beliefs differ greatly from what is today modern-Hinduism which formed in the Ganges plain. The Vedic religion consisted of gods which were shared with the Bactria–Margiana Culture as well as Avestan Zoroastrian beliefs. These early Vedic gods included Mitra (Avestan Mithra), Varuna (Avestan Ahura Mazda), Indra (Zoroastrian Verethraghna) and the ritual Soma drink, borrowed from from the Bactria–Margiana culture in what is today Uzbekistan.[18]
Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, and had no temples, idols or deities that we are aware of. The Vedic Indo-Aryans seem to have adopted this ideology and forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows and had no caste system. They were culturally closer to the ancient Avestan Iranians, who also are linked to the Aryan migration.[19][20]
“The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the northwest part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas”.
— Norman Brown; Pakistan and Western Asia
The hymns of the Rig Veda, composed by Vedic mystics/poets of the Indus, tell us that the Vedic people worshiped these gods (Indra, Varuna, Mitra etc.), ate beef, elected their chiefs, drank liquor, considered Punjab’s tributaries and Sindhu as sacred, and referred to people living in the east and south (Gangetic-Deccan region) as “dasyas”. None of the Gangetic Brahmanical gods (Ram, Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, etc.) are mentioned in Vedic hymns nor do they appear in connected Aryan Avestan texts and Hittite tablets.
“The word Veda means knowledge. There were originally four Vedas, but the most important is the Rig Veda, which is also the oldest. The Rig Veda is a primary source for the study of the early Aryans; it is, in essence, a collection of 1028 hymns arranged in ten books. Per the Vedas, Aryans worshiped elements of nature in personified forms, and idolatry was forbidden. In Rig Veda, the Gods of Dyaus is the same as the Greek Zeus (Roman Jupiter), Mitra is the same as the Graeco-Roman Mithras, Ushas is the same as the Greek Eos (Roman Aurora), and Agni is the same as the Graeco-Roman Ignis. The image of the Aryans that emerges from Vedic literature is that of a virile people, fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, and gambling. Their god of war, Indra, was an ideal Aryan warrior: he dashed into battle joyously, wore golden armor, and was able to consume the flesh of three hundred buffaloes and drink three lakes of liquor at one time.”
When they first arrived in South Asia the Aryans were primarily pastoralists. Their economic life centered around their cattle and wealth was judged based on the size of herds. As the newcomers settled in fertile river valleys, they gradually shifted more to agriculture. They lived in villages consisting of several related families. Several villages comprised a clan, and several clans a tribe, at the head of which was the king. The king’s authority depended on his personal prowess and initiative and was limited by the council of nobles, and in some tribes by the freemen.
The outstanding characteristic of this early Aryan society was its basic difference from the later Hinduism. Cows were not worshiped but eaten. Intoxicating spirits were not forsaken but joyously consumed. There were classes, but no castes, and the priests were subordinate to the nobles rather than at the top of the social pyramid. In short, Aryan society resembled much more the contemporary Indo-European societies than it did Hinduism that was to develop in later centuries in the Gangetic Valley.”
— L. S. Stavrianos
Internecine military conflicts between these various Vedic tribes was very common and as such the Indus Valley did not have one powerful Vedic kingdom to wield the warring tribes into one organized kingdom. Most notable of such conflicts was the Battle of Ten Kings, which took place on the banks of the River Ravi in 14th century BCE (1300 BCE) between the Bharatas tribe and a confederation of Vedic tribes. The Bharatas emerged victorious, yet the constant threat of war forced many Vedic tribes to consider migrating.[21]
Up until 1200 BCE, the Ganges plain had remained out of bounds to Vedic tribes because of thick forest cover as well as local resistance from its native Gangetic inhabitants (the early Dravidians). After 1200 BCE, the use of iron axes and ploughs became widespread and forests could be cleared with ease. By 800 BCE, Vedic society transitioned from semi-nomadic life to settled agriculture. Vedic tribes now had a choice to remain in the Indus Valley or migrate and settle in the Ganges plain. Some stayed such as the Sindhu and Kashmira, while others left such as the Bharatas and the Purus. Many of the old tribes coalesced to form larger political units, such as the Kurus.[22]
These tribes which migrated east from the Indus to the Ganges almost all broke Vedic norms in the process, and marks an important division between Indus Vedic culture and the emerging “Ganges Vedic culture”, which would cease to exist within a few generations. While the Indus Vedic culture would remain authentically Vedic, the Ganges Vedic culture would morph as it merged with indigenous Dravidian/Gangetic cultures — thus in turn giving rise to Puranic Hinduism or Brahmanism, or what is today the most dominant form of Hinduism in India. Out of Puranic Hinduism came works such as the Manusmirti, Mahabharata and Ramayana.
The ethnic, cultural and religious differences between the Indus and Ganges led to a ‘clash of civilizations and nations’ in which the Vedic people of the Indus did not accept the Gangetic priests, gods, shastras, religion, culture or Brahmanical caste ideology. Vice versa, when you read Puranic texts like the Mahabharata for example, you read similar injunctions against the Vedic Indus priests, gods and culture.[23]
For a more detailed look at this, I would suggest reading my article “ The Aryan Migration & Debunking Out of India Theory”.
#2. External factors — acceptance and tolerance
The influence of external factors on both regions should also be discussed.
In the Indus Valley, Vedic tribes and ideology flourished between 1200 BCE to to 500 BCE. Following this period, the Indus Valley would come under the influence of the Persians, Greeks, Macedonians and various Central Asian tribes.
As a result, this led to a “warping” of the primitive Indus Vedic culture, as its tribes and kingdoms would come under the influence of Hellenistic, Zoroastrian and Central Asian culture and beliefs.
The Kalash tribe, Sindhu Kingdom (Sindhi Hindus) and Kashmiri Pandits are a perfect living example today of how early Indus Vedic tribes absorbed and adopted external beliefs and customs; instead of outright accepting foreign cultures and beliefs, a gradual meshing occurred over time. This constant absorbing and meshing of other beliefs produced a culture of acceptance and tolerance in the Indus Valley — a culture which would continue for centuries on in the Indus Valley.[24]
In the Ganges, a culture opposite to that of the Indus would be formed, where foreign beliefs and customs would be persecuted. A good example would be the Shunga Genocide of Buddhists.
The Mauryan Empire collapsed in 185 BCE when Pushyamitra Shunga assassinated the last Mauryan emperor Brihadratha. Although the Mauryan Empire had been established in the Ganges by a Puranic Brahman named Chandragupta, his more famous grandson Ashoka came to be influenced by Buddhist teachings and accepted Buddhism as his new faith. During this period Buddhism and Hinduism were in direct competition with each other. Under Ashoka’s rule, Buddhism would expand beyond the Ganges into the Indus and as far as Bactria in Central Asia, which led to the formation of the Greaco-Bacrtian dynasty.
When Pushyamitra Shunga ascended the throne and established the Shunga Empire, he did so under the pretext of “protecting Hinduism” as he himself was a Puranic Brahman Hindu. To him and his followers, Ashoka was a traitor.
Buddhist sources, such as the Ashokavadana, mention that Pushyamitra was hostile towards Buddhism and persecuted Buddhists. A large number of Buddhist monasteries were converted to Hindu temples, in such places as Nalanda, Bodhgaya, Sarnath and Mathura. Even some Puranic sources describe the resurgence of Puranic Hinduism (Brahmanism) following the collapse of the Mauyan Empire and the killings of millions of Buddhists, such as the Pratisarga Parva of the Bhavishya Purana:
“At this time [after the rule of Chandragupta, Bindusara and Ashoka] the best of the brahmanas, Kanyakubja, performed sacrifice on the top of a mountain named Arbuda. By the influence of Vedic mantras, four Kshatriyas appeared from the yajna (sacrifice). (…) They kept Ashoka under their control and annihilated all the Buddhists. It is said there were 4 million Buddhists and all of them were killed by uncommon weapons”.
Many Buddhists escaped the Ganges plain towards the Himalayas into Nepal and Bhutan and eventually into Tibet and China. Buddhists also escaped into the Indus Valley, in particular Punjab, Khyber Pakhtukhwa and Kashmir. As news of the persecution spread to the Greaco-Bactrian Kingdom, a military force was gathered and marched through the Khyber Pass to as far east as they could go to stop Shunga advancements into the Indus. This is why the capital was deliberately established at Sagala (Sialkot).[25][26]
When we look at the complete history of the subcontinent, the general consensus and rule of thumb is that external beliefs and cultures were tolerated in the Indus Valley while shunned in the Ganges plain. Centuries later when Islam would arrive, the same would occur again, with Islam first being tolerated and then meshing with local culture in the Indus Valley, while being outright shunned in the Ganges plain.
This explains why Islam became the dominant religion in the Indus Valley and why Pakistan is a majority Muslim country today. However, the important distinction to make here is that Islam did not define the split between Indus and Gangetic people. This split was formed over the centuries where an Indus nation accepted and tolerated while the Gangetic nation shunned and closed itself from the outside. Regardless of what religion people chose, it was these cultures that superseded all.
#3. Muslim League politics
The third and most important factor is the Muslim League’s usage of the religion card. The Muslim League used rising Muslim nationalism which began in the late 19th century to gain support for Pakistan…one could easily compare it to Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto and campaign where a “brand” was sold to the people.
But the concept for this country is not what you have been made to believe. Pakistanis have horribly misunderstood the true concept and creation of the Muslim League. This political party was created for 3 main purposes:
- The first was to build bridges between the Muslim community and British government, which had severely been dented during the 1857 War of Independence. Muslim leaders realized that violence would not solve anything and hence resorted to becoming politically active.
- The second was to fight for civil rights of Muslims, which were denied to them under the British-Brahmin leadership of the British Raj after 1857.
- The third was to forge good relationships with non-Muslim communities in the British Raj, particularly with the Hindu majority.
In the end, due to the stubbornness of Congress leaders (dominated by Brahmins), the Muslim League was left with no other option other than to support the creation of an independent majority Muslim country, where Muslims could live in freedom. Nowhere did the Muslim League (and Jinnah for that matter) advocate an Islamic country. They simply wanted a piece of territory to themselves where Muslims would not be subjected to 2nd class treatment and discriminatory laws.
For a more detailed look into the Muslim League and Pakistan Movement, I would suggest you read my article “Muslim Pakistan vs Islamic Pakistan”.
Conclusion
On the surface and to the untrained eye, it may look as if Muslims and Hindus are two different nations, but that’s a false conclusion to make. Underneath both these religions are two different cultural nations.
You cannot tell the difference between a Sindhi Hindu and a Sindhi Muslim since they behave the same and speak the same language. Similarly, you cannot tell the difference between a Tamil Hindu and a Tamil Muslim for the same reasons.
Furthermore, there are Hindus that live in South India and South East Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia etc.) and in the Indus Valley (Sindh, Kashmir, Kalash etc.) who differ from Hindus in North India by a great deal in terms of beliefs and culture. Let’s compare and contrast; Hinduism in Pakistan can be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped.
In Sindh, the most revered god is Jhulelal (Ishta-Deva). They regard Jhulelal to be a incarnation of Varuna, an early Vedic god who was adopted from the Iranian Avestan deity Ahura Mazda. The Kalash tribe revere an Indra-like figure as the central part of their religion. Indra was adopted from the Zoroastrian deity Verethraghna. Kashmiri Pandits also worship a Vedic god known as Kheer Bhawani.
In comparison, Hinduism in India can also be defined by the gods which are revered and worshiped. These include Shiva, Karthikeya, Ganesha, Shakti (Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Meenakshi) and Hanuman — all these gods were originally from Tamil or South Indian culture, which was adopted during the Vedic period in the Ganges plain. Vishnu on the other hand is a product of Ganges Vedic culture.
Essentially, the early primitive Vedic religion is being practiced by Hindus in Pakistan, whereas in North India the Puranic Ganga-Dravidian religion is being practiced…known today as Hinduism. The original Vedic gods such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna etc. are not mainstream at all among Indian Hindus. The same argument could be said about the Muslims. The Muslim communities of the Indus Valley differ greatly in culture and overall attitude from their Muslim counterparts in North India or the Middle East — take for example the celebration of Chand Raat or the influence of Sufism.
The problem isn’t actually Hinduism or Islam when it comes to problems in the subcontinent. The harsh reality is that this Muslim-Hindu divide did not arise out of hatred for each religion, but rather was born out of the culture of the Ganges plain. It’s this culture of intolerance which BOTH North Indian Hindus and North Indian Muslims share which led to the divide, and the inability of North Indians to live together. Why should events in North India (Ganges plain) be used as an excuse to justify discrimination against the Pakistani Hindu community? A Pakistani Hindu is more closely related to a Pakistani Muslim than any North Indian Muslim ever could…genetically, culturally and historically!
In the end, how does the “Two-Nation Theory” hold up when religion is the prime differentiating factor? It fails — but when you factor the two cultures (Indus and Gangetic) into the equation, the theory makes more sense.
Moving Forward
To use the Two-Nation Theory (as it’s presently defined) to defend Pakistan’s existence is futile. The movement for Pakistan achieved its objective in 1947. We now need to move on!
Pakistan does not have a non-Muslim majority threatening its annihilation anymore, so we can’t use the two-nation theory for our internal challenges. Pakistan rather needs to own and celebrate its Indus culture and history, rediscover its roots of acceptance and tolerance, and truly form into a united multi-ethnic nation, rather than this “Islamic Republic” which we are being forced fed.
This is why I believe the two-nation theory should be redefined and why Pakistan should becomes the loose federation which Jinnah envisioned. In this world, power would rest with each province.
We are a collection of different nations living together in one home. It’s time we celebrated that alongside our rich history, which very few countries have the luxury of having.
Sources
a. The Indus River plain — Britannica
1. Hindu population in Pakistan grown at a faster pace than India — Business Standard
2. A little-known fact: Hinduism is the fastest-growing religion in both Pakistan — scroll.in
3. McIntosh, Jane (2008). The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives. ABC-Clio. ISBN 978–1–57607–907–2.
4. Brooke, John L. (2014). Climate Change and the Course of Global History: A Rough Journey. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978–0–521–87164–8.
5. Sindh and Kutch, cloth and verse — Himal Southasian
6. Two sides of the Thar desert — The Friday Times
7. Punjabiyat: A shared inheritance of two Punjabs — Caravan
8. How this West Punjab man is uniting Punjabis with Partition stories — Indian Express
9. Bangladesh: The struggle for cultural independence — Coates, Jenefer. Volume 1 (1): 19 — Mar 1, 1972
11. Witzel, Michael (2005), “Indocentrism”, in Bryant, Edwin; Patton, Laurie L. (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Controversy. Evidence and inference in Indian history, Routledge
12. Studia Orientalia 64 (1988); Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia (1995); Carpelan et al. (eds.)
13. Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European (2001) N. Sims-Williams (ed.)
14. Indo-Iranian languages and peoples (2002); Iranica Antiqua 37 (2002)
15. Journal of Indological Studies (Kyoto) 16&17 (2005); M. Willis (ed.)
16. Migration, trade and peoples, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of South Asian Archaeology in London (2009)
17. Flood, Gavin D. (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521438780
18. McClish & Olivelle 2012, p. xxiv: “Although the Vedas are essentially liturgical documents and increasingly mystical reflections on Vedic ritual, they are sufficiently rich and extensive to give us some understanding of what life was like at the time. The earliest of the Vedas, the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā, contains 1,028 hymns, some of which may be as old as 1500 BCE. Because the Vedic texts are the primary way in which we can understand the period between the fall of the IVC (ca 1700) and the second wave of urbanization (600 BCE), we call the intervening era of South Asian history the ‘Vedic Period.’”
19. Anthony, David W. (2007). The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978–0691058870.
20. Woodard, Roger D. (18 August 2006). Indo-European Sacred Space: Vedic and Roman Cult. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978–0–252–09295–4.
21. Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1998), A History of India, Routledge, ISBN 978–0–415–32920–0
22. Sayeed, Ahmed — Know Your India: “Turn a New Page to Write Nationalism”
23.
24.
25. Simmons, Caleb; Sarao, K. T. S. (2010). Danver, Steven L. (ed.). Popular Controversies in World History. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978–1–59884–078–0.
26. Lahiri, Bela (1974). Indigenous states of northern India, circa 200 B.C. to 320 A.D. University of Calcutta. p. 31.
