Talk:Two-nation theory

message: Withdrawn by the one requesting RFC based on the policy Mydust (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a brief and neutral question for those unfamiliar with the dispute, particularly for accessing this RfC through WP:RFCA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For the current 'two-nation theory' discussion on the Introductory description, disagreement is on whether it should be used as a descriptor for an ideological "religious nationalism", or the symbolic usage of religion for a cultural identitarianism Mydust (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll want to overwrite the boilerplate for the prompt that will be displayed at WP:RFCA. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that means mate Mydust (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: At present there is almost no info in the lead as to when either the theory evolved, or of when any other aspect occurred. I have  a reasonable grasp of the historical chronology (as a UK person with a general knowledge of the events leading up to Indian/Pakistani independence), but a reader unfamiliar with the period, would be given few clues.
There may be a conscious decision to use present tense, but: The two-nation theory is an ideology of religious nationalism that purports that Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus are two separate nations, with their own customs, religion, and traditions; consequently, both socially and morally, Muslims should have a separate homeland within a decolonised British India  -somewhat implies that Britain still occupies India and that Pakistan and Rep. of India have not yet been formed!
Dates and context would greatly help the reader who comes without prior knowledge IMO, it may be in the body but isn't really present in the lead at present AFAI can see. Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When? 

message: Rather than using vague statements, changing the introductory statement to specify it as Muslim nationalism in South Asia or as Indian Muslim nationalism, where what that entails can be detailed within that article as one of the several variants of South Asian Muslim nationalism, between Indian Nationalism Muslims, Indian Muslim nationalism, or Islamic universalism. The purpose is that religious nationalism is too vague and can range from anything to Pan-Islamism to Indian Muslim cultural chauvinism. 
This is not an attempt to sugergoat the article, but an attempt to more accurately specify the political identity of the Indian Muslim community based on the leading historians on the topic.Mydust (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Solution 

message: IP editor, the anachronism you're adding to the article has no bearing on contributing to the two nation theory. This view is used by some extreme modern Pakistani nationalists to justify the existence of that country. The two nation theory rests in the view that Hindu Indians and Muslims Indians were different nations due to religious dissimilarity. Besides, a huge part of Pakistan included East Bengal, which is not a part of Sindh. You don't have any consensus and per WP:BRD you will need to revert unless others agree with you here. Capitals00 (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: All nationalists have a sort of mythology, to put it there doesn't mean you agree but that some Pakistani nationalists adopt such view (including someone as influential as Aitzaz Ahsan) so it's worth the mention. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:5450:A005:D43D:2973 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No scholarly text talks about Sind being distinguished from Hind in the context of the two nation theory as propounded by the All India Muslim League, which saw the two nations as being Muslim Indians and Hindu Indians, not Sindhis versus Hindustanis. Wikipedia should read similarly to other encyclopedias, none of which include this anachronism in their discussion of the theory. As such, your addition is quite WP:UNDUE for the article. You have been reverted by more than one editor and will be reported and blocked if you continue. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I quoted a Western scholar who says that this approach to history was mainstream among the Sindhi leaders associated with the Muslim League, thus pre dating partition and justifying it, please do refer to the source. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:77C2:220B:6F8:A903 (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What you write still has nothing to do with the two-nation theory, which as you have been told, includes the [eastern] Bengal region as part of Pakistan. Your interpolation is WP:UNDUE to this article and the citations do not mention it. You have consistently reverted against consensus and will be reported if you persist. Two-nation theory#Pre-Modern India already has enough details. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to background

message: The section uses language and information that strongly argues against the Two-nation theory without many arguments in support of it. It goes on at length about the issues created as a result of the partition, from bloodshed during the partition to Pakistan's current underdevelopment without stating any counter-arguments, such as poor arrangements by the British administration to facilitate a population exchange, or the longstanding issues Pakistan has faced post-1971. The section simplifies complex issues such as economic development -which is an issue tied strongly to global politics- and claims that the two-nation theory in itself is the cause of these problems.
Notwithstanding the lack of supporting arguments, the language arguing against the theory is very partisan and should be revised. 88.243.197.213 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Partition debate section is loaded.