Savarkar seeded the Two-Nation Theory, Jinnah politicised it, and Congress conceded under compulsion – yet Modi still blames Muslims for dividing India.
– Mohammed Talha Siddi Bapa
On August 15, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, standing in the Red Fort, lauded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its ideological forefathers as nation-builders. Just a day later, Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge reminded Indians of a very different legacy: that it was Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the Hindu Mahasabha leader revered by the Sangh Parivar, who first articulated the Two-Nation Theory – the very idea that Hindus and Muslims constituted separate nations.
This reminder shatters a central BJP narrative: that the Partition of India was engineered solely by Muhammad Ali Jinnah and abetted by the Congress. History, however, tells a more complex – and more inconvenient – story.
Savarkar’s Words: Two Nations Before Jinnah
As early as 1937, addressing the Hindu Mahasabha session in Ahmedabad, Savarkar declared:
“There are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India… Hindus and Muslims.”
In that same speech, he elaborated:
“India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian and homogeneous nation, but on the contrary, there are two nations in the main – the Hindus and the Moslems – in India.”
This speech predates Jinnah’s Lahore Resolution of 1940.
He repeated this in 1943 at Nagpur:
“I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah’s two-nation theory. We Hindus are a nation by ourselves and it is a historical fact that Hindus and Muslims are two nations.”
In fact, Savarkar’s Essentials of Hindutva (1922) had already framed India’s identity in religious-nationalist terms – Hindus as the rightful nation, Muslims as outsiders.
The record is clear: Savarkar provided the ideological seed of division. Jinnah politicised it. To erase Savarkar’s role is not only dishonest; it’s an assault on historical memory.
The BJP’s Narrative vs Historical Reality
The BJP’s narrative rests on two pillars:
- Congress betrayed Hindus and conceded to partition; and
- Muslims, led by Jinnah, are solely to blame for “breaking” India.
But Savarkar’s acknowledgment of two nations – decades before Partition – demolishes this myth. If anyone first declared Hindus and Muslims could never be one nation, it was Savarkar, the man BJP leaders now lionise as “Veer Savarkar.”
The Demographic Argument: Who Benefitted from Partition?
To understand the deeper irony, we must examine numbers.
- In an Undivided India, Muslims would have been about 31.5% of the population (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh combined).
- In today’s Republic of India, Muslims are around 14%.
Who Gained from Partition? Partition is often portrayed in BJP’s narrative as a historic “Muslim betrayal,” but the arithmetic of demographics tells a very different story.
- Hindus: In a united India (including present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh), Muslims would have comprised nearly 31.5% of the population – a formidable minority with real bargaining power in politics and governance. After Partition, however, Hindus found themselves in a far stronger position: today they make up nearly 80% of India, while Muslims are reduced to just 14%. Partition thus consolidated Hindu political dominance by transforming a diverse India into a state with an overwhelming Hindu majority.
- Muslims: For Muslims, Partition was catastrophic. From being almost a third of undivided India, they became a marginalised one-seventh of the population – losing demographic weight, political clout, and the ability to negotiate as equals within the new Indian polity.
The irony is stark: Partition structurally benefitted Hindus, not Muslims. Jinnah’s Pakistan may have fulfilled the separatist dream of a section of Muslims, but for Indian Muslims it meant political diminishment, vulnerability, and exclusion.
Yet today, BJP weaponises the memory of Partition, blaming Muslims for breaking India while using that very blame to push them further to the margins. By isolating them from mainstream politics, denying them equal representation, and branding them as perpetual suspects, Muslims are punished twice: first by the historic loss of Partition, and now by a narrative that reduces them to the “backward among the backward.”
Why Would Savarkar Embrace the Two-Nation Theory?
Savarkar’s embrace of the Two-Nation framework was not an accident, it was strategic.
- By labelling Muslims as a separate nation, he delegitimised their equal claim to India.
- A united India with one-third Muslims posed a challenge to the Hindu Rashtra project. Partition reduced Muslims to a fraction, strengthening Hindutva’s claim over India.
- For Savarkar and the RSS, Partition was not a tragedy but a calculation: a smaller, more homogenous India with Hindu political dominance guaranteed.
Seen this way, Savarkar and Jinnah were mirror images:
- Jinnah sought to empower Muslims with a separate state.
- Savarkar sought to diminish Muslims within India by conceding their separateness.
- Both rejected the idea of composite nationalism.
Congress’s Role: A Defensive Concession
The Congress, led by Nehru and Gandhi, entered the Partition negotiations reluctantly. Their acceptance in 1947 was not born out of desire but compulsion – an attempt to prevent civil war after years of communal violence.
It is simplistic – and historically dishonest – to argue Congress engineered Partition. In reality, Congress resisted it until it became the only path to avert total disintegration and bloodshed.
Modi’s Red Fort Speech: The Irony of Historical Amnesia
Against this backdrop, Modi’s Independence Day praise for the RSS and Savarkar acquires a tragic irony. From the nation’s most symbolic stage, he exalted the ideological forebears of the very theory that fractured India.
Meanwhile, BJP leaders routinely label Muslims, secularists, and student activists as the “tukde-tukde gang” – accusing them of dividing the nation. Yet their own ideological icon, Savarkar, declared Hindus and Muslims to be two separate nations long before Jinnah did.
This doublethink is not just hypocrisy, it’s political gaslighting on a national scale.
Breaking the Myth: Partition Was Not a Muslim “Gift”
When the BJP says “Muslims divided India,” the facts say otherwise:
The first formal articulation of Hindus and Muslims as separate nations came from Savarkar.
Partition demographically strengthened Hindus, leaving Muslims weakened.
Congress, often demonised as the betrayer, in fact delayed partition until violence made it unavoidable.
The true story is this: Hindutva ideologues like Savarkar legitimised the logic of separation, Jinnah turned it into a political demand, and Congress yielded to historical compulsion.
Lessons for Today
The Two-Nation Theory is not just a historical debate; it casts a long shadow on today’s India.
- When Muslims are branded as “outsiders” or “appeasers,” it echoes Savarkar’s 1937 words.
- When BJP claims sole ownership of nationalism, it mirrors the exclusive Hindutva definition of the nation.
- When history is rewritten to vilify Muslims and Congress, it serves the same project that Partition already accomplished: consolidating Hindu dominance.
India’s challenge is not just to remember history, but to resist its selective distortion.
The Ghost of Two Nations
Priyank Kharge’s intervention is timely. It reopens a chapter the BJP would rather keep closed: that Savarkar, not Jinnah, first floated the Two-Nation idea. And that Partition, far from being a Muslim conspiracy, cemented Hindu majority rule in India.
In 1947, India was broken not just by Muslim separatism but by the ideological collusion of Hindu and Muslim nationalists who both rejected a shared destiny.
If India today wishes to heal, it must face this truth squarely: the real “tukde-tukde” began when Savarkar divided the people of India into two nations.
