Pak army chief Gen Munir highlights two-nation theory again
Munir's remarks came almost a week after he had described Kashmir as Pakistan's "jugular vein" during a diaspora event and asked overseas Pakistanis to pass on the country's story to their children, emphasising that their forefathers believed Hindus and Muslims were different in every possible aspect of life.
On Saturday, Munir was addressing the passing out parade of cadets at the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) in Kakul area of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province.
"The two-nation theory was based on the fundamental belief that Muslims and Hindus are two separate nations, not one. Muslims are distinct from Hindus in all aspects of life--religion, customs, traditions, thinking and aspirations," Munir said.
His remarks come amidst tension with India in the wake of the Pahalgam terrorist attack on Tuesday which killed 26 people and prompted India to announce several measures against Pakistan, including the suspension of the Indus Water Treaty.
Undeterred by the unfolding security situation, Gen Munir said that Pakistan was achieved after many sacrifices and it was the duty of the armed forces to keep it safe.
"Our forefathers made immense sacrifices for the creation of Pakistan.We know how to defend it."
Earlier on April 16, while addressing a Convention for Overseas Pakistanis in Islamabad, Munir claimed that Hindus and Muslims are different nations, and urged the audience to tell the story of creation of Pakistan to their children.
"You have to tell Pakistan's story to your children so that they don't forget that our forefathers thought we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life," he said, evoking the two-nation theory propagated by Pakistan's founder M A Jinnah.
"Our religions are different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different. That was the foundation of the two-nation theory that was laid there. We are two nations, we are not one nation," he added.
Prior to it, in the same address, speaking about Kashmir, he had said: "Our stance is very clear, it was our jugular vein, it will be our jugular vein, and we will not forget it. We will not leave our Kashmiri brothers in their heroic struggle."
India has repeatedly told Pakistan that the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh "was, is and shall forever" remain an integral part of the country.
The ties between the two countries nosedived after India abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution, revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, and bifurcating the State into two Union Territories on August 5, 2019.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Mahayuti leaders welcome Malegaon blast verdict, slam Congress for coining term ‘saffron terror'
Mumbai: Leaders of the ruling Mahayuti alliance in Maharashtra welcomed a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court's decision on Thursday to acquit all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, with chief minister Devendra Fadnavis slamming the previous Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government for allegedly coining the term 'saffron terrorism'. As soon as the verdict was out, Fadnavis posted his reaction on social media: 'Terrorism was never saffron, is not, and never will be!' (PTI) The Congress, meanwhile, alleged that the investigation was botched due to political pressure. Maharashtra Congress president Harshwardhan Sapkal also asked the Mahayuti government if it would approach a higher court to challenge the Malegaon verdict, just like it did recently when the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Thursday's verdict was delivered nearly 17 years after a bomb strapped to a motorcycle exploded near a mosque in the communally sensitive town of Malegaon in Nashik district in September 2008, killing six people and injuring over 100. Seven people were charged in the case, including Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, a serving Army officer at the time. However, the court acquitted them after flagging several loopholes in the prosecution's case, saying there was no 'reliable and cogent' evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. As soon as the verdict was out, Fadnavis posted his reaction on social media: 'Terrorism was never saffron, is not, and never will be!' Later, speaking to reporters, Fadnavis said the Congress-led UPA government at the time was responsible for the entire case, alleging it was a conspiracy to create the narrative of 'Hindu terrorism' as a counter to Islamic terrorism, which had been globally recognised after the 9/11 terror attacks. 'More than the police, the then UPA government was responsible for the case. They had conspired to appease a certain community and extremist ideology. The court verdict has exposed the conspiracy, and the entire country is now condemning it. Congress leaders must now publicly apologise to Hindus for defaming them by associating them with so-called saffron terrorism and the conspiracy to coin a new term—Hindu or saffron terrorism,' he said. Fadnavis added that his government will look into the details of the verdict, checking what exactly the court has brought on record. A decision over the next course of action would be taken after this, he added. Senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar also blamed the previous Congress-led government for the bungled investigation, saying, 'The ruling parties at the time tried to indict innocent people in the case to appease certain communities. There was a political motive behind it, as was said after the case was registered. The verdict has ratified the doubt raised.' Shiv Sena president and deputy chief minister Eknath Shinde alleged that using the term 'saffron terrorism' was part of the Congress's conspiracy to defame the Hindu community. 'Hindus can never engage in anti-national activities, because patriotism is a sacred duty for those who follow Hinduism. The absurd term 'Hindu terrorism' was coined by conspiratorial Congress leaders. What answer do they have now for such blatant falsehoods?' he said. Adding that the court's verdict has ended a dark chapter, he said, 'The stigma on the Hindu community has been wiped off. The slogan 'Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain' (Say with pride we are Hindus) will now resonate across the country with a hundredfold louder voice. Truth may be troubled, but can never be defeated.' The Congress hit back at the Mahayuti, with state party chief Sapkal saying that terrorism has no religion or colour, and the state government should ensure justice is delivered in the case. 'As soon as the verdict of the 2006 [Mumbai train] bomb blasts was announced, the state government challenged it in the Supreme Court. Will the state government show the same will in this case, as both were acts of terrorism and the perpetrators of the cases should face justice,' he said, adding that the state government should not be double-faced. The 12 acquitted accused in the train blasts case were all Muslims. Congress spokesperson Sachin Sawant said, 'These people even view terrorism through a political lens. Those associated with the BJP and RSS had, for their political gain, labelled martyr Hemant Karkare a traitor. Wasn't it the same political mindset that led to [special public prosecutor] Rohini Salian being asked to take a lenient stand against the accused and slow down the investigation? Witnesses were enticed with offers. A witness like Randhir Singh was even given a ministerial position in Jharkhand.' Karkare, the former chief of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), led the team that initially investigated the blast and arrested 11 suspects, including Thakur and Purohit. He was killed in action during the 2008 Mumbai terror attack. Sawant also said that the central government should express sorrow that individuals responsible for such a major terrorist incident are now roaming free. 'Honestly, this verdict did not come as a surprise because the NIA had already given them a clean chit. The government should consider renaming this investigative agency the NaMo Investigation Agency,' he said. Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Arvind Sawant said the fact that the investigation agencies had failed to gather evidence properly and the real culprits were still not known was a serious matter. 'The remarks by the court, which said there is no evidence, was a serious matter. If there was no evidence against Sadhvi Pragya and others, why did they suffer all these years? It was an injustice to them. But the incident took place, so someone must be involved in it. Who are they? Why can't investigation agencies catch them?' he said. Former MP Imtiyaz Jalil from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, meanwhile, maintained that the blast was aimed at 'creating communal division' in the country. 'An Army officer and a religious figure were accused in the case, which was being investigated by one of the finest officers, Hemant Karkare. The BJP has tried to derive political advantage from the case,' he said.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Strong suspicion not same as proof': All 7 acquitted in '08 Malegaon blast
Mumbai: Citing lack of "cogent, reliable, and acceptable evidence", a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions…the more serious the offence, higher the degree of proof needed for conviction," special judge A K Lahoti said. "Though there was strong suspicion of the accused, it cannot take place of legal proof." Six of the seven accused had spent nine years in jail as undertrials till 2017 before getting bail in a case purportedly linked to a plot by right-wing extremists to terrorise the local Muslim population of Malegaon. Six people died in the 2008 blast and 101 were injured. The judgment, delivered after a legal process lasting 17 years, highlighted lapses in the probe conducted by the state's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) before it was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The judge pointed to retractions by numerous witnesses and shortcomings such as mishandling of the crime scene and planting of evidence. After the verdict, Thakur took a seat in the witness box. Addressing the judge, she said the verdict was a "victory for Hindutva." Breaking down, she said her life was destroyed by the humiliation and stigma of being labelled a terrorist for 17 years. "Jinhone bhi humaare saath galat kiya, prabhu unko kabhi kshama nahi karega (God will punish those who wronged us)" Purohit, who arrived in court with military security, said the agencies are not wrong, but the people running them were. Acquitting all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon case, a special NIA court focused on the failure of the prosecution to establish that a bomb was fitted inside a motorcycle. Based on the evidence, special judge A K Lahoti said, "there is a possibility of keeping a bomb from the outside on the same motorcycle, by hanging, etc." The judge also noted that it could not be proved that the bike on which the bomb was allegedly fitted belonged to accused Pragya Singh, that RDX was procured by Purohit from Kashmir, or that he assembled the bomb. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The NIA judge said the conspiracy in the case remained unproven due to absence of evidence and witnesses who would testify that a series of meetings were held by the organisation named Abhinav Bharat to plan the attack. ATS investigations focused on the alleged conspiracy by a group intent on avenging perceived atrocities against Hindus. Striking terror by orchestrating a bomb blast in Malegaon, a Muslim-dominated area, was the alleged objective. However, the judge said to show that the conspiracy was finalised at Faridabad and Bhopal, the prosecution was not supported by "material witnesses" and the testimony of those who did was not "reliable and acceptable. ..other meetings which were held at Kolkata, Indore, Ujjain, Nashik and Pune, no acceptable evidence is present on these on record…witnesses have retracted from their earlier statements given to ATS. Therefore neither conspiracy is proved nor meetings are proved," the judge said. While it was alleged that Ajay Rahirkar, acting as treasurer of Abhinav Bharat, collected donations and distributed funds to Lt Col Prasad Purohit, who was a trustee, as well as to Sudhakar Dhar Diwedi and Major (retd) Ramesh Upadhyay, Purohit used the funds for personal expenses, including house construction and paying for LIC policies. "But there was no evidence that the said amount was used for terrorist activities," the judge said. The retraction of statements given by 39 of 323 prosecution witnesses to the ATS considerably weakened the case. "The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions," the judge said. Referring to procedural shortcomings, the judge criticised the handling of the crime scene. No sketch was drawn and the spot was not immediately barricaded, leading to contamination. He pointed out that a mob gathered after the blast, vandalised vehicles, caused damage to a police chowki, and snatched firearms of cops, which led to a lathicharge, police opening fire and using of grenades. No fingerprints or DNA samples were collected at the spot. Even material seized such as mobiles and laptops were not sealed as per due process. The judgment also raised concerns about procedures adopted for collecting voice samples and intercepting mobile communication. Interceptions were not authorized in the specific period, rendering intercepted data unusable as evidence. It was noted that "narco analysis was carried out of the accused by ATS but not supported by documents." The judge even raised concerns about planting of evidence. He recommended an inquiry into the actions of ATS officer Shekhar Bagade, whose presence at an accused's house was seen to be suspicious. The judge said despite allegations that Purohit brought RDX from Kashmir, no evidence was presented to show its storage at his house or its use in assembling the bomb. Interestingly, the NIA supplementary chargesheet in May 2016 had accused the ATS of planting RDX traces to frame Purohit and, notably, gave a clean chit to Pragya Thakur and others. However, the special court on Dec 27, 2017 ruled that seven accused, including Thakur and Purohit, would face trial under UAPA. In conclusion, the judge on Thursday spoke of the "agony, frustration and trauma caused to society at large, more particularly to the family of victims by the fact that heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished." "However law does not permit the court to convict the accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion," he said. The case will now continue against two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange.
The Wire
2 hours ago
- The Wire
In Bihar's Politics, a Fair Place at the Table Continues to Elude Muslims
Politics Despite Muslims constituting almost 17% of Bihar's population, their voices in legislatures remain disproportionately limited. In Bihar, politics often comes down to numbers and for Muslim candidates, those numbers can be brutally defining. Time and again, elections have shown a clear pattern: Muslim leaders are less likely to win from constituencies where their community doesn't form a significant chunk of the population. It often doesn't matter which party backs them or how experienced they are; if the local Muslim population is too small, their chances at the ballot box tend to drop. Despite Muslims constituting nearly 17% of the state's population, Muslim voices in the legislature are disproportionately limited by geography and demographics. It's not merely about election arithmetic; it's a commentary on where identity and representation meet in Bihar's highly caste and community-oriented politics. The data's message is stark: in Bihar, being a Muslim candidate means that your election may not hinge as much on what you believe in, but on who else around you looks like you do. In this article, we take a closer look at six recent elections in Bihar, three parliamentary (2014, 2019 and 2024) and three assembly (2010, 2015 and 2020), to better understand how Muslim representation has played out at the ballot box. By looking at these two sets of elections, this article aims to uncover patterns in candidate selection, constituency demographics and the win rates of Muslim candidates over the past decade and half. From 2014 to 2024: a narrowing path to parliament for Muslims The 2014 parliamentary election was a difficult terrain for Muslim candidates in Bihar. Most candidates that won had contested from constituencies with a large Muslim population. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) fielded six Muslim candidates, three in constituencies with a 20% to 30% Muslim population and two in constituencies with a less than 20% Muslim population, but only one – the party's candidate for the Araria constituency – won; that seat has a Muslim population of over 40%. The Janata Dal (United) (JD(U)) put up five Muslim candidates across different regions, none of whom managed to win. The Congress (INC) through Mohammad Asrarul Haque won one seat, Kishanganj, where Muslims make up around 68% of the population (and from where one of the JD(U)'s Muslim candidates lost). Tariq Anwar of the Nationalist Congress Party won from Katihar, where Muslims make up 41% of the population, and Mehboob Ali Kaiser of the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) won in Khagaria (with a just ~11% Muslim population), a rare case where he was able get support from the Dalit community as well – a community that also supported the BJP as the LJP was in alliance with it. The BJP's lone Muslim candidate Shahnawaz Hussain didn't manage to win from Bhagalpur, where Muslims form less than 20% of the seat's population. Overall, the results suggested that Muslim candidates could only win in a constituency where Muslims make up a large share of voters (Table 1). The 2019 election saw a decline in Muslim candidates winning seats. The RJD fielded five Muslim candidates, including in Muslim-majority seats like Araria, and lost all. The INC again held on to Kishanganj, with Mohammad Jawed winning from the same. However, their candidate in Katihar lost. Once again, the LJP's candidate in Khagaria won from a constituency with a low Muslim population share, repeating the exception seen in 2014. These results highlighted a deeper problem: Muslim candidates were not able to win in constituencies where they once had better chances. Without the support of other communities, especially Yadavs and Dalits, their chances had become even slimmer (Table 2). By 2024, the space for Muslim candidates had shrunk further. Only five were fielded by major parties: two by the RJD, one by the JD(U) and two by the INC. The RJD's candidates both failed to win. The INC, however, won both its seats: Kishanganj and Katihar. This underlined that it is still difficult for Muslims to achieve adequate representation. Their success now depends almost entirely on contesting from seats with large Muslim populations, and even then, only with backing from other communities like Yadavs and Dalits. Muslim representation remains limited to a few pockets where demographics and political alliances align just right. Overall, if we observe the eight Muslim candidates who won across the three elections, six of them were elected from constituencies where the Muslim population was over 40%. This clearly shows a strong correlation between a high Muslim population and the winnability of Muslim candidates (Table 3). 2010 to 2020: a decade of fluctuating fortunes for Muslims in the Bihar assembly In the last three assembly elections in Bihar, the success of Muslim candidates has dramatically fluctuated, depending on shifting alliances and party strategies, as well as the evolving political identity of Muslim voters. In 2010, the RJD fielded the highest number of Muslim candidates at 30. Its win rate in this aspect stood at just 20%. The INC performed even worse, with only three of its 49 Muslim candidates winning, thus clocking a dismal 6.12% win rate. The three seats the party won were Kishanganj, Kasba and Bahadurganj, all of which have a Muslim population of over 40%. The JD(U) emerged as an exception in this election, with a strong 50% win rate, largely due to its ability to garner support from across communities, even in areas with a low Muslim population. But the larger pattern in 2010 was clear: Muslim candidates were otherwise more likely to win from seats with high Muslim populations (Table 4). The 2015 election, however, brought a major shift. The formation of the Mahagathbandhan between the RJD, JD(U) and INC changed the game for Muslim candidates, who won 24 seats. The RJD's win rate surged to 75%, with 12 wins out of 16 constituencies, including many from seats where Muslims weren't even the predominant group. The JD(U) followed with a 71.42% win rate, while the INC also improved, winning six out of ten seats. This success was not merely a result of demographics; it reflected the fact that people averse to the NDA may have felt like they didn't have a choice but to vote for a Mahagathbandhan candidate (as their number of choices would have gone down with alliance parties fielding one candidate per seat), whether they were Muslim or otherwise. It also highlighted the fact that if Muslims receive support from other communities, they may make it to the assembly. The 2015 election proved that when social coalitions align, Muslim political representation can thrive, even in areas where they aren't numerically predominant (Table 5). By 2020, that momentum had fractured. The Mahagathbandhan weakened, and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM)'s emergence in Seemanchal added a new layer of competition for Muslim votes. Nineteen Muslims were able to win in this election. The RJD's performance slipped, with just eight of its 18 Muslim candidates winning – a 44.44% win rate. The INC's win rate declined drastically to 36.36% and the JD(U), once a model of cross-community support, failed to send a single Muslim candidate to the assembly, largely due to two factors: first, its being an ally of the BJP, and second, in the recent past the JD(U) didn't seem to stand up for the Muslim community on the national and state level. The AIMIM secured five wins out of 15 in its debut assembly election in Bihar, but only in Muslim-majority constituencies, highlighting both its rise and its limits. The 2020 results revealed a scattered field where Muslim votes were divided and Muslim candidates increasingly reliant on narrow, community-driven strategies rather than broad-based alliances (Table 6). This pattern in which Muslim candidates often win from seats with a large Muslim population raises a troubling question. Why is it that Muslim voters often vote along ideological lines, but non-Muslim voters seem to prefer sticking to caste lines when the candidate is Muslim? According to the CSDS-Lokniti post-poll survey of 2020, 76% of Muslims voted for the Mahagathbandhan, irrespective of caste and region. Yet when a Muslim candidate stands, many from the Mahagathbandhan's own base often keep their votes firmly within caste and religious borders. Transferability, the supposed lifeblood of coalition politics, seems to get stuck in traffic whenever a Muslim candidate appears on the ballot. The irony is rich: the most ideologically loyal voters get the least electoral reward. Perhaps parties in Bihar should hold a crash course on coalition basics, or at least invest in stronger vote transfer engines. Because if secular parties don't seriously rethink Muslim representation soon, they may find their minority plank strong in theory, but minority MLAs missing from the seats that count. For years, Muslims in Bihar have voted with hope in their hearts, not for their own caste or narrow interests. Muslims stood by the promises of secularism, cast their vote for alliances and not identity. But when it's time for tickets or seats, they're too often left behind, told quietly that the numbers don't favour them. Their loyalty is rarely doubted, yet they are rarely rewarded by secular parties. Muslims aren't asking for privilege, they are asking just for a fair place at the table. And if their voice keeps getting ignored, the silence they leave behind may one day speak volumes. Aamir Shakil is a political researcher based in Delhi. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
