পাতা:বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্র (প্রথম খণ্ড).pdf/৭৬৮

বাংলাদেশের স্বাধীনতা যুদ্ধ দলিলপত্রঃ প্রথম খণ্ড

৭৪৩

have rightly said that Joint Electorate is natural and we say why there should be an exception made by accepting this exception. My friend Mr. Mujibur Rahman has rightly said that, everywhere there is jointness. He has very clearly and impressively shown 10 the House that there is jointness everywhere and that this motion, if accepted, would be inequitable. Now, Sir, what does the two-nation theory mean? When Quaid-i-Azam made his memorable declaration he took a realistic view of the whole situation. He was faced by the realities. Two-nation theory was propounded for getting the Indo-Pakistan continent partitioned in order to get Pakistan, for which he strenuously fought. But what Pakistan did he fight for? He fought for a Pakistan in which the population would be exclusively Muslims. There will be no minorities and really that was the original scheme. Therefore, along with this scheme there was the logical demand for exchange of population. Now, the date of Independence was fixed to August, 1948, but after the advent of Lord Mountbatten, as the Viceroy of India, the date was altered and independence came to us on the 14th August, 1947, by creating Pakistan and the demand for exchange of population was abandoned. This question of Pakistan and India was settled and it was settled in a manner by which in Pakistan there were not only Muslims, but also there were Hindus, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and many other backward classes. That is the Pakistan that was created. Quaid-i-Azam thought over this and in his very first inaugural address delivered in the Constituent Assembly he said, “After all we have got Pakistan. We wanted to avoid the Minorities but there are Minorities. What are we to do now the perceived that the two-nation theory was inapplicable as it was created. Therefore, lie exhorted the people to forget the past and bury the hatchet. “Do not raise religious cries in connection with political rights.” He pointed out that in England there was now no Presbyterian, there was no Catholic although they fought for rights on religious grounds. They are now all British citizens. Similarly he asked the people to forget the past and remember that they are all one nation and he very significantly said that a time might come when there will be no Hindu and no Muslims; meaning that there would be one nation composed of all religious groups. Now, Sir, that inaugural speech of Quaid-i-Azam came to be scrutinized by eminent Judges, in connection with the Punjab disturbances and one of the Judges was the Chief Justice of the present Supreme Court of Pakistan, I mean Mr. Justice Munir. They said, “if we realised the real meaning of the utterances of Quaid-i-Azam in his inaugural speech we would find that it meant that he stressed the creation of one nation in Pakistan.” He dreamt that all the people of the various religious groups would unite to form one nation to have one political life and that in that lay the overall welfare of the country, which would be hampered if religious differences art actuated even in regard to political rights. One nation composed of various religious groups merged together, working together for the amelioration of the condition of the people and to create a Pakistan of peace, prosperity and happiness, so that the country might lake its rightful place in the comity of Nations, was what he emphasised. But whal do we find now? That speech is now distorted and misinterpretation by reference to some of his previous statements in which he made mention of Two nations- non- Muslims and Muslims. The criteria for determining the nationality of the two nations are differences of dress, food, manners and language. But he did never say that these differences should make them politically to be two different nations. His idea was that religious faiths should be kept apait from political affairs of the country of Pakistan.