❖ Was Pakistan Founded on Religious Division or Economic Interests? ❖
Hamid Kamaluddin insightfully challenges the claim that the demand for a separate Muslim homeland in the Indian subcontinent was merely based on differences in lifestyle or culture. He poses a critical question:
“If the difference was merely in living styles, then why couldn’t Hindus and Muslims continue living together in the same country?”
✔ Hindus and Muslims still live in their respective manners in both India and Pakistan today, which suggests that the issue was not just lifestyle but something deeper and more fundamental.
✔ If the difference were simply cultural or customary, Muslims and Hindus in cities like Delhi, Kolkata, or Lahore could have coexisted peacefully.
✘ But history shows that their differences forced them apart — suggesting a civilizational and religious fault line, not merely cultural variety.
Some argue that the division was due to economic interests rather than religious conflict.
✘ But if economic interests alone were enough to separate nations, why didn’t other social and economic groups such as Rajputs, Jats, or Gujjars demand separate nations?
✔ Why did Muslim Rajputs and Hindu Rajputs develop conflicting interests, despite sharing the same caste background?
✔ What turned the interests of Muslim Jats against Hindu Jats, despite their shared ethnic roots?
This shows that religious identity, not just economic class, was the defining and dividing factor.
✔ The subcontinent has always had social and economic divisions, such as the one between Dalits and upper castes.
✘ Yet these divisions never led to demands for separate nations.
✔ In contrast, the divide between Muslims and Hindus evolved into a complete political separation, affirming that religious distinction was the core issue.
According to Hamid Kamaluddin:
✔ Economic motives may have played a supporting role, but the core issue was the religious distinction that made co-existence in a single state untenable.
✘ If it had been purely about economics, other communities would have also demanded separation — but that did not happen.
✔ Therefore, to overlook the role of religion in this historical event is to ignore the most defining factor of the Partition.
✔ Secular and liberal thinkers often label religious-based separations as unfortunate and regressive.
✘ Yet they celebrate Pakistan's formation, which was precisely on a religious basis.
Hamid Kamaluddin asks:
“If you believe religious separation is wrong, why then do you celebrate the creation of Pakistan?”
✔ The separation of Bangladesh is acknowledged as a painful historical event, not a cause for celebration.
✘ Yet Pakistan’s creation — rooted in religious difference — is celebrated, even by liberal secularists, despite contradicting their own ideological stance.
This reflects a double standard in secular thought.
According to Hamid Kamaluddin, the Partition of the Subcontinent was fundamentally the result of a religious divide, not simply economic concerns or cultural differences.
✘ Reducing this major historical event to lifestyle or economic motives is misleading.
✔ The deep-rooted religious distinction between Hindus and Muslims was the core driver behind the demand for Pakistan.
✿ The Misconception of Lifestyle-Based Separation
Hamid Kamaluddin insightfully challenges the claim that the demand for a separate Muslim homeland in the Indian subcontinent was merely based on differences in lifestyle or culture. He poses a critical question:
“If the difference was merely in living styles, then why couldn’t Hindus and Muslims continue living together in the same country?”
✔ Hindus and Muslims still live in their respective manners in both India and Pakistan today, which suggests that the issue was not just lifestyle but something deeper and more fundamental.
① Cultural Difference or Civilizational Divide?
✔ If the difference were simply cultural or customary, Muslims and Hindus in cities like Delhi, Kolkata, or Lahore could have coexisted peacefully.
✘ But history shows that their differences forced them apart — suggesting a civilizational and religious fault line, not merely cultural variety.
② Was It Economic Interest or Religious Identity?
Some argue that the division was due to economic interests rather than religious conflict.
✘ But if economic interests alone were enough to separate nations, why didn’t other social and economic groups such as Rajputs, Jats, or Gujjars demand separate nations?
✔ Why did Muslim Rajputs and Hindu Rajputs develop conflicting interests, despite sharing the same caste background?
✔ What turned the interests of Muslim Jats against Hindu Jats, despite their shared ethnic roots?
This shows that religious identity, not just economic class, was the defining and dividing factor.
③ Historical Context of Caste and Class Conflicts
✔ The subcontinent has always had social and economic divisions, such as the one between Dalits and upper castes.
✘ Yet these divisions never led to demands for separate nations.
✔ In contrast, the divide between Muslims and Hindus evolved into a complete political separation, affirming that religious distinction was the core issue.
④ Religious Difference Was the Real Foundation
According to Hamid Kamaluddin:
✔ Economic motives may have played a supporting role, but the core issue was the religious distinction that made co-existence in a single state untenable.
✘ If it had been purely about economics, other communities would have also demanded separation — but that did not happen.
✔ Therefore, to overlook the role of religion in this historical event is to ignore the most defining factor of the Partition.
⑤ Secular Thought and Inconsistent Reactions
✔ Secular and liberal thinkers often label religious-based separations as unfortunate and regressive.
✘ Yet they celebrate Pakistan's formation, which was precisely on a religious basis.
Hamid Kamaluddin asks:
“If you believe religious separation is wrong, why then do you celebrate the creation of Pakistan?”
⑥ Bangladesh Comparison: A Reflection on Principles
✔ The separation of Bangladesh is acknowledged as a painful historical event, not a cause for celebration.
✘ Yet Pakistan’s creation — rooted in religious difference — is celebrated, even by liberal secularists, despite contradicting their own ideological stance.
This reflects a double standard in secular thought.
Conclusion: Religion Was the Fundamental Cause of Division
According to Hamid Kamaluddin, the Partition of the Subcontinent was fundamentally the result of a religious divide, not simply economic concerns or cultural differences.
✘ Reducing this major historical event to lifestyle or economic motives is misleading.
✔ The deep-rooted religious distinction between Hindus and Muslims was the core driver behind the demand for Pakistan.
