6 min readApr 29, 2025 03:41 PM IST
First published on: Apr 29, 2025 at 03:34 PM IST
India’s social harmony and stability are vital for its progress at all times, but perhaps most in the Amrit Kaal. Equally, they are fundamentally significant for this country’s entire neighbourhood. Any attempt, by a neighbour, to disturb, let alone disrupt them, can only have negative consequences for the region. Naturally, it is the first responsibility of any Indian government to preserve and protect India’s social well-being; that is the duty imposed on it by India’s secular and democratic constitution and traditions. But it can also be considered extremely short-sighted and counter-productive for the leader of a neighbouring country, even one that has an adversarial relationship with India, to aggressively illustrate contentious ideologies which led to Partition in 1947. That is what Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir did when he addressed a gathering of Overseas Pakistanis in Islamabad on April 16.
A few lines are essential to place Munir’s words in context.
The two-nation theory, with all its connotations on Hindu-Muslim ways of life and living, is the foundational principle of Pakistan. The Pakistan army has always claimed the prerogative of not only being the guardian of Pakistan’s territory but also of its ideology. However, while emphasising the latter, no army chief or political leader has publicly, at least, resorted to the rhetoric of the 1940s of Muhammad Ali Jinnah on Hindu and Muslim differences. Jinnah, once called the “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”, evolved into the creator of Pakistan on the basis of the two-nation theory. To attract Muslims to his cause, he resorted to extreme, unbending, unkind and dubious language to demonstrate that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate and irreconcilable nations, warranting the partition of India into two separate countries.
Jinnah thought that Partition would result in a Hindu majority country with a large minority of Muslims and a Muslim majority Pakistan with a large Hindu population. He considered the presence of significant minorities as a guarantee that both states would treat their minority populations well. What came to pass was very different from Jinnah’s ideas. Partition led to what can only be called religious cleansing in West Pakistan of Hindus and Sikhs and the movement of almost all Muslims from the then East Punjab. Many Muslims from other parts of North India and some from the South too opted to go to West Pakistan.
However, the situation was different in Eastern India. Significant numbers of Muslims remained in India in West Bengal and Assam, and a large Hindu population continued to stay on in East Pakistan. Naturally, those Muslims who chose to live in India rejected the two-nation theory. Their descendants do so too, seeking to address their grievances within India’s secular Constitution. The resolution adopted by the Jammu and Kashmir assembly in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack is an emphatic assertion of India’s secular values enshrined in its constitution.
It is here that Asim Munir’s elaboration of the two-nation theory is nothing but provocative. He said that the forefathers of Pakistan “thought we are different from the Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religions are different, our cultures are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different. That was the foundation of the two-nation theory that was laid there, that we are two nations, we are not one nation. Because of that, our forefathers struggled, mounted that incessant struggle to create this country. Our forefathers persevered immensely, and we have sacrificed a lot for the creation of this country, and we know how to defend it”.
Munir would be aware that his comment on Hindu-Muslim differences would be unacceptable to all Indians who believe that faith cannot define nationalism, that the Indian Constitution embodies this principle. He would also have known that his words would make all Hindus, especially those who espouse secular principles, unhappy. They would be left wondering about the reason that led him to go into territory none of his predecessors had gone into. Some Hindus, and also Muslims, may feel that he was sending an unhealthy signal to India’s Muslim citizens that they can never be fully part of the Indian political and constitutional enterprise. It is insidious to seek to plant such a thought in the mind of Indian Muslims. It is not that the patriotism of India’s Muslims is weak, but that a Pakistan army chief should attempt to do so is unacceptable.
Munir should be aware of the dangers of using the language of communalism in contemporary times. It is unwise for a foreign leader to even remotely provoke communalism. It is one matter to state a principle and another to use illustrations that have been abjured by Pakistani leaders themselves after 1947. Theological, ideological and ethnic fissures in Pakistan’s western neighbourhood have destabilised Pakistan’s north and north-west. Lakhs of refugees from Afghanistan who entered and live in Pakistan have contributed to the mess in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. It would seem that Pakistan has learnt no lesson from these developments of the past 50 years. It continues to battle insurgencies and militancy from its own people, but the generals do not understand that their country’s welfare is tied up with a neighbourhood that is at peace with itself.
None of this implies India’s institutions do not have to continuously, even assertively, uphold the Constitution’s secular values. Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna did well to remind a senior government counsel: “When we sit on Bench, we lose our religion.”
The writer is a former diplomat
Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir 
Share
