A Nation-Marx to Mao (contd-2)

The Theory of Minorities in Classical Marxism :Mr. J. Hales, was the Council's Secretary of the International Working Men's Association. In the first International and in the Hague Congress, !872, He proposed a resolution about nationality of Irish on which Mr. F. Engels said that the real purpose of the motion, was to bring the Irish sections intosubjection to the British Federal Council, a thing which the Irish people would never consent, and which the council had neither the right nor the power to impose upon them.....The Irish formed a distinct nationality of their own, and the fact that they used the English language could not deprive them of their rights. Citizen, Hales had spoken of the relations of England and Ireland being ofthe most dyllic nature ..... But the case was quite different. There was the fact of seven centuries of Englishconquest and oppression of Ireland, and so long as the oppression existed, it would be an insult to Irish working men to ask them to submit to a British Federal Council.The motion was asling the conquered people to forget their nationality and submit to their conqurers. It was not internationalism, but simply prating submission. If the promoters of the motion were so brimful of the truly international spirit, let them prove it by removing the seat of the British Federal Council to Dublin and submit to a Council of Irishmen. In a case like that of the Irish, true Internalism must necessarily be based upon a distinct national organisation, and they were under te necessity to state in ...their rules that their first and most pressing duty as Irishmen was to establish their own 5 national Independence.

Thus we have Engels' concerning opinion about the nationalism of two million Irish men and women like Puerto Ricansof US.

A Nation-Marx to Mao (contd-1)

This Essay is an extract from "The Theory of National Minorities" by J.M.Blaut, published by London: Zed Books. First published in Monthly Review in 1977 with the Title "are Puerto Ricans a National Minority?"

Real Nation had the potential to become Independent States, and deserved the right of self-determenation.National minorities had no such potentential, and were fated to dissolve, in political terms, through assimilation. Moreover, National forms of political struggle were justifiable for nations, but not for national minorities. One of Stalin's crucial critaria for nationhood was the possession of undivided national territory. They had come to India only after 13th century. Ethnic communities which were fragmented or dispersed were not real nations.They were national minorities. Puerto Ricans living in the United States must be, by this criterian, a national minority. The same judgement must apply to many other communities around the world, including, for instance, West Indies, Africans and Asians in Europe, and koreans in Japan.

So the Muslims in India were not a nation. They were, simply, a national minority and were not elligible to have a state.

There are two Marxist Theories dealing with minorities and there are two different kinds of minoroties, each succumbing to their own distinctive analysis. Puerto Ricans do not fall within the purview of Stalin's Theory, but within another theory which was prefigured in Marx's and Engales'analysis of the Irish community in England and was then developed into a general theory by Lenin in the period of 1915-1923.The fundamental difference between the two theories has to do with the facts of colonialism and Imperialism.

A Nation- Marx to Mao

A Nation is a concept, rather, a by-product in the age of Capitalism due to the contradiction between a feudal and or a Capitalist society with another Capitalist society. The term has come to exist after the French revolution i.e. after the end of eighteenth century. From the time of Marx and Engales it was discussed at length. Mao, a pragmatic Marxian leader, explained the term national minority directly by citing several examples of his time. He said that the Mongols and Hans should co-perate closely and have faith in Marxism. All our minority nations should trust each other, no matter what nationalities they were.They must see which side truth lied.Marx himself was a Jew, Stalin belonged to a Minority nation , and Chiang Kai-shek was a Han, a bad one, whom we strongly opposed. We must not insist that only people of a given province should take charge of the administrationof that province. The place of origin of a man was irrelevant-northerner or southerner, this national minority or that minority, ( that were all the same). The questions were whether they had communism and how much.This point should be explained clearly to our minorities.
To begin with, The Han was not a big race, but a mixture of a great number of races. The Han people had conquered many minority nations in history and driven them to highlands. (We) must take a historicsal view of our nationality question and find out that we either should depend on minority nationalism or on Communism. Ofcourse, w3e should depend on Communism. We should need our regions but not regionalism.

Two-Nation Theory (Ireland)

Northern Ireland consisting of six of the nine counties of Irish Province of Ulster (north Ireland), marked orange.

Global position of North Ireland

Independent Ireland from July 1921

The two Nations theory holds that the Northern Ireland were a distinct Irish nation.

The problems facing Irish revolutionaries revolve to a large extent around the theoritical and practical attitude to the Protestant (orange) section of the working class. The most prominent and distinct of the confusing ideas is the two nations theory. It is gathering some credence among left wingers who have despaired of accomplishing the task of partitioning the north of Ireland from its mainland and wants to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Bangladesh, Two-Nation Theory (contd-6)

Was religion the source for two -nation theory :
First, let us examine the proposition that reliigious commonality was the primary motive force behind the nationhood of the then century. If religious commonality were the essential engine for nation building, then the Europe's christian followers were divided into so many different nations.Even if we accept that it was denominational differences that divided them, we might still ask -why were not all the followers of the Roman Catholic faith in Europe nationally unified? Why were not they united in Central and South America ? Why didn't all protestants get together in one nation?
If religion alone could serve as the basis for national unity- how was it that inspite of several attempts at unity , Islam failed to unify the Arabic speaking people of north Africaand the middle east?
If Islam could not be developed as the primary basis of national identity in the Arab world where Islam originated and had virtually universal following - wasn't it peculiar that Islam should be viewed as the pre-eminent basis for defining national identity in the sub-continent?
If we were to go by the experiences of the European or other Asian nations, we would find that cultural and linguistic factors, and shared historical experiences had often been more decisive in forging the idea of nationhood.
The claim that the sub-continent comprised two-nation , Hindus and Muslims, in a stark exception to the general pattern of nation building elsewhere in the world, many western intellectuals had promoted the claim as if it were within the ambit of a generally accepted or universally valid model.
Perhaps, the legitimacy of the 2-nation claim arised from within the unique and specific experiences of the sub-continent as some Western analysts had attempted to suggest . They had argued that religion had played such a pre-eminent and overpowering role in the sub-continent, that unlike anywhere else in the world, religion was the only reasonable basis for defining nationhood in the sub-continent.

Bangladesh,Two-nation Theory (contd-5)

The ideology of Pakistan stems from the instinct of the Muslim Community of South Asia to maintain their individuality by resisting all attempts by the Hindu Society to absrb it. Muslims of south Asia believed that Islam and Hinduism were not only two religions but two social orders that have given birth to two distinct cultures with no similarities. A deep study of the history of this land proves that the differences between Hindus and Muslims were not confinedto the struggle for political supremacy, but were also manifested in the clash of two social orders. Despite living together for more than a thousand years they continued to develop different cultures and traditions. Their eating habits, music,architectures and scripts, are all poles apart. Even the language they speak and the dressesthey wear are entirely different.

The ideology of pakistan took shape through an evolutionary process, Historical experience provided the base .

Some right wing Hindu leaders such as Vinayak Savarkar endorsed the two-nation Theory. However, Savarkar, the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha , believed that the new nation state of Pakistan should be formed somewhere in the Middle East as opposed to being in the lands in which the Vedic religion was founded and in which Hinduism thrived until the Islamic invasion.

In the Pakistan Times, Samina Mallahasserts that the Two-Nation theory is relevant to this day,citing factors such as lower literacy and education levels amongst Indian Muslims as compared to Indian Hindus, long-standing cultural differences, and outbreaks of religious violence.

Criticism:

Some historians have claimed that the theory was a creation of a few Muslim intellectuals. Prominant Pakistani Politician Altaf Hussain believes history has proved two-nation theory wrong.

Mao of British India ,1909,showing percentage of Hindus in different districts.

Bangladesh, Two Nation Theory (Contd-4)

Alberuni (973-1048) born in Uzbekistan on Sept. 973 and died in Ghazni today's Afghanistan in 13 Dec. 1048. On 1973 Afghan post stamp commemorating his one thousand anniversary. He was a Persian and multidimensional scholar of the 11th century.
He was a scientist, a physicist, an anthropologist, a comparative sociologist, an astronomer, a chemist, a critic of alchemist and astrology, an encyclopedist, a historian, a geographer, a traveler, a geodesist and geologist, a mathematician,a pharmacist and pshychologist, an Islamic Philosopher and theologian, a scholar and a teacher. He was the first Muslim scholar to study India and Brahminical tradition, and has been described as the founder of Indology, the father of geodesy,,and the first anthropologist. as said by George Saarton he was one of the greates scientist if Islam

An illustration from Biruni's Persian Book

A statue of Biruni in Iran

An Iranian Painting of Biruni, Showing him writing one of his books In the Introduction to his book, INDICA, Biruni himself wrote that his intent behind the work was to engage dialogue between Islam and and the Indian religion, particularly Hiduism as well as Budhism. He said that "the book (he wrote) would be sufficient for any one willing to converse with the Hindus".According to Arthur Jeffery Biruni was an unprejudicedin his views about religion. Though his name had been mentioned as an aid to form the idea of two-nation theory but on close study it was found that he had simply mentioned the similarities and dissimilarities between the Hindu and the Muslim religion which in no case would help the formation of Pakistan.