Was two-nation theory justified for the people of subcontinent?
January 1, 2010
The boundaries of Pakistan emerged out of the subcontinent on the map of the world in 1947. This dream was accomplished on the basis of two nation theory. This theory held that there were two nations Hindu and Muslims living on the territory of subcontinent. It was observed even by some neutral observers of the Indian scene, which the basis on which the Muslims demanded was far from reality. 
why should the inhabitants of some geographical unit, that have been living together for centuries be supposed to from two different nations? This notion prevailed due to the general misunderstanding that the Muslims claimed to be different nation from Hindus simply because they believed in a different religion.
This thinking aptitude was exploited by Hindu leader that made a wide propaganda that a body of converts could not be a nation. But in reality there were quite large number of Muslims in the subcontinents who originally hailed from central Asia and other Muslim countries. And as a matter of fact, besides religious antagonism, there were also other factors which were bound to split the inhabitants of the subcontinent into two peoples. 
They included:
Religion
Culture
Mode of Life
Language
Customs
Literature
Posted by Aaronjames Adam · Filed Under Opinion
2 Responses to “Was two-nation theory justified for the people of subcontinent?”
hi, new to the site, thanks.
I’m not sure exactly why but this website is loading extremely slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a problem on my end? I’ll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.