Two-Nation Theory and division of the Indian Subcontinent: analysing the idealist and revisionist perspectives

Abstract

Two-Nation Theory, long regarded as the linchpin of the partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947, has come under scrutiny by revisionist scholars who seek to challenge and question the prevailing idealism surrounding this historical division. Revisionist perspectives offer a critical analysis of the Two-Nation Theory by contesting its oversimplified portrayal of Muslims in the Subcontinent. These scholars assert that the theory, which framed the partition because of irreconcilable religious differences, neglects the intricate tapestry of cultural, linguistic, and regional identities among Muslims. Moreover, revisionists delve into the multifaceted causes of partition, asserting that it cannot be solely attributed to religious disparities. They emphasise the role of political manoeuvring, economic inequalities, power dynamics, and the shortcomings of leadership in shaping this historical event. Revisionist arguments also suggest that political leaders, such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the All-India Muslim League, may have strategically employed the Two-Nation Theory to secure advantages during negotiations with the British colonial administration. This challenges the prevailing notion that the demand for a separate Muslim state primarily reflects religious sentiment. This research attempts to contemplate the revisionist perspectives on the Two-Nation Theory, which ultimately led to the division of the Subcontinent.