General Asim Munir and Two Nation Theory ... Returning of an old toxic thinking

If there is an example of Hasan Surur-ideological Beturation, then it is two-Rules, on which India’s division was done under the stupid claim that Muslims and Hindus cannot live together because they are two different nationalities that are not based on their faith. For over 75 years, when it was believed that this theory was dead, Pakistan recently raised it to justify anti-India activities, which recently took both countries to the mouth of full war. It is no coincidence that a few days before the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22, in which the Pakistan-supported terrorists angered with bullets after 26 Hindu pilgrims, Pakistan Army General Assem Munir quoted, quoted two-nion theory, who should listen to the two-nation theory. His inflammatory things were not so. Now it is clear that this is not a coded sign, but a clear indication that anti-Indian elements must come into effect. And they also came into action. After the Pahalgam massacre, Munir again teased the same issue as if he were praising his ‘sons’. He said that the theory of two nations is “based on the basic belief that Muslims and Hindus are two different countries, not one”. “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thinking is different, our pursuit is different. It is from here that the basis of two-nation theory is laid. We are two nations, we are not a nation,” he said, trying to mobilize the Pakistan’s people against “Hindu India”. He sang the old Raga of danger from India and said in an interview: “Our ancestors made tremendous sacrifices to build this country, and we also sacrificed a lot, and we know how to save it.” And if anyone missed his ‘sermon’, he added: “My dear brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, please do not forget the story of Pakistan and tell it to the next generation, so that their relationship with his country is never weak.” This mad rhetoric of Munir received a sharp reaction from all parts of politics in India. The Government of India has also strongly condemned it, saying that it is an attempt to divide between Hindus and Muslims. In media reports, unknown “top official sources” were quoted that its statement was made for the purpose of creating a joint Muslim front against India, providing fundamentalists and terrorists to attacks. ” General Munir’s attempt was seen as an attempt to represent himself as the heir of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the ideological heritage of Zia-Ul-Haq. “In an attempt to become the heirs of Jinnah and Zia, Munir is the thinking of Pakistan who no longer serves the people of Pakistan and turns the country into an indiscriminate war -oriented military canton,” wrote former Pakistan High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria. But in the midst of all this stands an ‘elephant in the room’, which does not pay attention to non-perhaps because it can shock the generous and romantic thinking that India regards as a multi-religious and multicultural society, where everyone lives happily. Sometimes I also believed in this bright dream and not bind our shared Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb-a-part cultural heritage, which was a combination of Hindu and Muslim cultural elements, including language, art, music, literature and social behavior. Some look at this Tehzeeb is still visible, but the old generation that won it now ends slowly. And with that, religious and cultural identities on both sides become strict, which is the birth of a Hindutva vs. Sharia takes. As a result, Hindu Muslim relationships are now at some point. This is not a sudden incident, nor is it a job of some insane people. It is important to remember that the secular congress part in India has ruled most of the time over the past 75 years and it was responsible for community relationships. Therefore, most disadvantages in the same era took place, although it is also true that the distrust between the two communities has increased rapidly and is now the condition that they are barely talking to each other. It is easy to raise fingers on each other, but the real problem is much deeper than that. And this is the ‘elephant’ mentioned above. The reality is that Hindus and Muslims live in different worlds religiously and culturally, although it does not mean that they cannot live under the same roof, despite a few clashes until time. During the Ahmedabad session of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1937, VD Savarkar said: “Two opposing countries live in India. It is wrong to regard India today as a uniform and uniform nation. On the contrary, there are two big countries here – Hindus and Muslims.” Later, when Jinnah thought that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations whose religious, philosophers, social, cultural and literary traditions are different, Savarkar supports it. In a speech given in Nagpur on August 15, 1943, he said: “I have no objection to Jinnah’s two-study theory. Our Hindus is in itself a nation and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.” Even Dr. Br Ambedkar also has Hindu Muslim tension in his book ‘Pakistan, or the partition of India’ (1945) He accepts ‘historical, religious, cultural and social causes’. He wrote that if Hindus and Muslims are separate nations, then accept that they can live in the same condition, “a hollow preaching, a madness is a fantasy that will accept no sensible person”. Ahmadiyya Muslim James also supported Jinnah and his theory with two countries. In fact, the leader of Ahmadiyya Chaudhary Zafarullah Khan drafted the Lahore proposal in which Pakistan was claimed. How ironic that they are not considered a Muslim in Pakistan today and that their harassment is facing. It is clear from this that Hindu Muslims open more about cultural confrontation at the time, although there was untouchable acceptance, but today, when today’s generous ideology is ashamed of the discussion. The thing that should be really worried about religious leaders and politicians is that two-rational theory still has emotional attraction in the radical parts of both sides. And that was the hidden emotion that General Munir wanted to fry. And while he managed to inspire the Muslim extremists of his country and the result was the Pahalgam attack, they did not deepen the Hindu Muslim division in India. Rather reversed – both communities unite against a shared enemy that is still entangled in conservative ideas, while India has moved forward. But be careful – there is a lot of way that religious sentiments want to attract and scrape old wounds. (Hasan Surur is the author of ‘Anamsking Secularism: Way V. Need a New Hindu-Moslim Deal’. The above views are his personal and do not necessarily reflect the ideas of News 18 Hindi.)