Origins of two nations theory - An Evidence Based Analysis.

1. It is generally believed that the movement for Muslim self-awakening and identity was started by Ahmad Sirhindi (1564–1624), who fought against emperor Akbar's religious syncretist Din-i Ilahi movement and is thus considered "for contemporary official Pakistani historians" to be the founder of the Two-nation theory.

Source:-(Arthur Buehler, "Ahmad Sirhindī: Nationalist Hero, Good Sufi, or Bad Sufi?" in Clinton Bennett, Charles M. Ramsey (ed.), South Asian Sufis: Devotion, Deviation, and Destiny, A&C Black (2012), p. 143).

2. It was particularly intensified under the Muslim reformer Shah Waliullah (1703-1762) who, because he wanted to give back to Muslims their self-consciousness during the decline of the Mughal empire and the rise of the non-Muslim powers like the Marathas, Jats and Sikhs, launched a mass-movement of the religious education which made "them conscious of their distinct nationhood” which in turn culminated in the form of Two Nation Theory and ultimately the creation of Pakistan.

Source:-(M. Ikram Chaghatai (ed.),Shah Waliullah (1703 - 1762): His Religious and Political Thought, Sang-e-Meel Publications (2005), p. 275).

3. Syed Ahmad Khan (1817–1898) as the architect of the two-nation theory. 

        A.For instance, Sir Syed, in a January 1883 speech in Patna, talked of two              different nations, even if his own approach was conciliatory:-

“Friends, in India there live two prominent nations which are distinguished by the names of Hindus and Mussulmans. Just as a man has some principal organs, similarly these two nations are like the principal limbs of India.”

Source:-(Makers of Modern India, Harvard University Press (2011), p. 65).

      B. However, the formation of the Indian National Congress was seen politically threatening and he dispensed with composite Indian nationalism. In an 1887 speech, he said:

“Now suppose that all the English were to leave India—then who would be rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations, Mohammedan and Hindu, could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and inconceivable.”

    C. In 1888 when Badrudin tayyabji requested sir syyed to come into fold of congress to find common values between Hindus and Muslims, he wrote back to Tayyabji:-

          “The community also exists between human and pigs as both are mammals”.

4. Savarkar’s definition as summarised by B.R Ambedkar “the most scientific politician of India”:-

“Mr. Savarkar... insists that, although there are two nations in India, India shall not be divided into two parts, one for Muslims and the other for the Hindus; that the two nations shall dwell in one country and shall live under the mantle of one single constitution;... In the struggle for political power between the two nations the rule of the game which Mr. Savarkar prescribes is to be one man one vote, be the man Hindu or Muslim. In his scheme a Muslim is to have no advantage which a Hindu does not have. Minority is to be no justification for privilege and majority is to be no ground for penalty. The State will guarantee the Muslims any defined measure of political power in the form of Muslim religion and Muslim culture. But the State will not guarantee secured seats in the Legislature or in the Administration and, if such guarantee is insisted upon by the Muslims, such guaranteed quota is not to exceed their proportion to the general population.”

                                                                                       S.