Divide-and-conquer and divide-and-rule were hallmark tactics of the conniving colonial British lords who exacerbated the religious differences between Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs in South Asia, while engaging in wars and violence to conquer, colonize, and control the Subcontinent. For example, their divide-and-rule tactic involved introducing the 1871 census and different political systems, emphasizing communal identities, which fostered animosity, especially between Hindus and Muslims, and creating separate electorates for Muslims and Hindus, while using these religious divisions to maintain their power and control. It contributed significantly to the escalating tensions between Muslims and Hindus. Moreover, to weaken the Bengali nationalist movement, the British used the same divide-and-rule tactic by creating a Muslim-majority East Bengal and a Hindu-majority West Bengal, a move seemingly intended to sow religious division.
But the British divide-and-rule tactic later backfired (as they say, a trickster is tricked by the trickster’s own trick). This is because the religious division created by the British narratively aided in the formation of the Islamically-influenced Two Nation Theory, which was initiated by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and later adopted and advanced by the poet Iqbal. The theory, which states that India's Hindu and Muslim populations were two separate nations, with different customs, traditions, and ways of life, and hence could not coexist peacefully in a single state, caused occurrences of communal divisions, disharmonies, and disturbances, including vulgarities and violence. This theory was used as a rallying cry by the All-India Muslim League leaders of a movement that demanded a separate Muslim state, culminating in the 1940 Lahore Resolution calling for the creation of "independent states" in the Muslim-majority regions of India.
Influenced by the theory, MA Jinnah transformed from advocating for Hindu-Muslim unity within a unified India, to demanding a separate Muslim state, and to becoming a relentless political leader
The top leaders of the All-India Muslim League who played key roles in the Lahore Resolution of 1940 were: MA Jinnah, as the president of the All-India Muslim League, who presided over the Lahore Resolution session; AK Fazlul Huq, the then-Prime Minister of Bengal, who formally moved the resolution; and a nine-member subcommittee responsible for drafting the resolution, which included top leaders such as MA Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Abdullah Haroon and Nawab Ismail Khan. The resolution was seconded and supported by other prominent leaders from various provinces, including Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman (from the United Provinces), Zafar Ali Khan (from Punjab), Sardar Aurangzeb Khan (from the North-West Frontier Province), Sir Abdullah Haroon (from Sindh), and Qazi Muhammad Esa (from Balochistan).
For communications with the British, the All-India Muslim League selected MA Jinnah as its sole spokesperson. He was an English-speaking Shia Muslim with a Western lifestyle, and the poet Iqbal had previously met and persuaded him while propagating the Two Nation Theory. So, Mr Jinnah referred to the Two Nation Theory continually as his vision throughout the movement to justify the demand to partition colonial India, so as to have independent states in the Muslim-majority regions of India. Mr Jinnah transformed from advocating for Hindu-Muslim unity within a unified India, to demanding a separate Muslim state, and to becoming a relentless political leader. His negotiations showed less the power of persuasion but more of an unwavering stance in the face of opposition from both the British and the Indian National Congress.
The deadly events of Direct Action Day called by the Muslim League in 1946 convinced the British colonizers and the Indian National Congress that the partition of India was inevitable to prevent further bloodshed; and hence, the colonizers caved in and started to chaotically consider a quick partition of India on religious lines. So, the British in London sent Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, who investigated the situation in the British empire in South Asia, and concluded that Partition was the only way to avoid a full-scale civil war. He prepared a thorough plan called the Mountbatten Plan that was announced on 3 June 1947. The plan formally accepted the principle of partition and provided a legal and political mechanism for the new state of Pakistan to come into being, including the framework for independent India. Also, the plan paved the way for the creation of Pakistan by giving provinces like Punjab and Bengal the option to vote for partition and allowing princely states to choose to join either India or Pakistan.
Based on the Mountbatten Plan, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act in July 1947, that officially dissolved the British Raj and provided the key pieces of legislation to formally partition British India and transfer power. To create Pakistan, the Viceroy Lord Mountbatten ordered and oversaw the quick establishment of the boundaries, called the Radcliffe Line, which involved carving out of British India multiple lands, largely based on Muslim-majority areas, for Pakistan. The haste with which this was done contributed to the immense violence and suffering of the partition of British India.
Lord Mountbatten also ordered and oversaw the division of assets, including the Indian Civil Service, the Indian Army, and the central treasury, between the two new nations, which was a pressing priority for him in solidifying Pakistan as a newly-created independent state with its own institutions. Pakistan Studies books overlook his role in creating Pakistan.
Also forgotten are many other important figures, the other leaders of the All-India Muslim League, such as Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Abdullah Haroon, Nawab Ismail Khan, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, Zafar Ali Khan, Sardar Aurangzeb Khan, Sir Abdullah Haroon, and Qazi Muhammad Esa. They all were key players in the movement for independent states in the Muslim-majority regions of India. But they are rarely mentioned and never depicted on 14 August, the founding day of Pakistan.
The poet Iqbal, the other propagator of the two-nation theory, who died in 1938, is proudly portrayed as the “Dreamer of Pakistan” by the Pakistani people. But none of his poems mention the word "Pakistan", even though this term was coined in 1933 and fervently sloganized and used by Indian Muslims during the last five years of his life and afterward for the Pakistan movement. Instead, in one of his poems, Iqbal said, "sare Jahan se achha Hindustan hamara," which Gandhi recited over a hundred times while imprisoned at Yerawada Jail in Pune during the 1930s. As such, many Indians think that Iqbal was their Indian poet.
The 19th century’s Two Nation Theory has historically been shown to contribute to a communal division that caused first the British to lose their colonized India, and then, Pakistan to lose East Pakistan, as the Pakistani Bengalis, who were seen as more Indian with a Hindu-influenced lifestyle and script, were unfairly subjugated by West Pakistan. And as a result, India, due to its own hatred and vengefulness for this theory that caused the partition of India, militarily helped them to create an independent country, called Bangladesh that was once East Pakistan. This process was described as India symbolically drowning this theory into the Bay of Bengal.
So, to a number of evolved people, the Two Nation Theory is considered outdated and discarded in the 21st century.
But unfortunately, due to tensions with India, Pakistan seems to have recently revived and re-espoused the divisive Two Nation Theory, which poses problems for the symbolism of Pakistan’s flag, that is green for Muslim Pakistanis and white for non-Muslim Pakistanis. This may lead to divisions and disharmonies in Pakistan’s various communities, which are religiously and ethnically diverse. Based on historical experience, Pakistan could also experience further threats to its territorial integrity. By examining the experience of the past, it becomes clear that the theory worsened communal tensions and led to several rounds of territorial division in South Asia.