Even if it were true, this Nostradamus-like take on prophecy is well below the level of any self-respecting historian. The reality of political outcomes many decades down the road cannot be attributed to some congenital defect that was apparent to one wise person. If no political intellectual was ever able to predict WWI, or Hitler, or Israel, or Obama, or the recent economic crisis, then this article as a prophetic proof of Pakistan's original sin might just be the product of the abundant anti-Pakistani sentiment or a twisted self-loathing of some Pakistani who knows little about the world. That Shorish Kashmiri was a second-rate journalist needs no further argument.

Maulana Azad

First of all, the messenger: It was the religion-obsessed generation of Maulana Azad and the first generation of pre-partition Pakistanis that gave us some of the religious problems that we have barely shaken off in the recent past. Azad himself was a salafi and called himself 'maulana' and the fatwa was his favourite tool of pronouncement. His dream of a united India was indeed noble but has not been borne out by subsequent history (see below). And if you read his recipe in this article closely, he is lambasting Muslims for not being 'pure enough' which is the refrain of all Islamic religion-merchants. The post-partition Pakistan-born generations have a very different concept of religion and a much more balanced world-view.

Reality of Pakistan

Now, about the message of the fake article: Pakistan was not founded as a dividing line of 'belief and non-belief' – it was founded out of a realisation that an India united under the Mughals as one state was to be handed over to a Hindu majority for the first time in history, and this majority's ancient claims on the culture and the land were so entrenched in mythology that unless there was federated power structure, Muslims as the largest non-Hindu group, would be reduced to an oppressed minority. Events in the late 1930s had united the Muslims of India, and once the British were lukewarm to the idea of 'Pakistan', it was just a matter of Jinnah's obduracy and hiding of his terminal illness that led itself to the formation of Pakistan.

Apart from offering Jinnah the Prime Ministership of a united India, Congress did little else to assuage Muslims with constitutional safeguards. As such, they were unable to break up the League coalition. The theoretical mantra of 'one-person, one-vote' is elegant, but political settlements of ethnic and communal groups work around them – such as the US Senate, or in Lebanon, or in India's affirmative action programs whereby 15% of seats in all legislative assemblies are reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The only rational reason for a lack of a compromise was a brinkmanship where Jinnah knew he could get Pakistan, and Congress calculated that the new state would not last long. It was the passion and hard work of Pakistan's founding fathers that built a state from virtually nothing – a state whose passion defied Congress calculations.

Pakistan and India Today

For a 62-year-old nation without a history, mythology, and with no governance structures on its inception, and no army to speak of, Pakistan has done wonderful. There is a lot more to be done, but it is would not be false to say that Pakistan has defied all expectations of Congress and the British. As I write this today, wearing a shalwar-kameez and a Nastaleeq Urdu word processor also open, while ghettoized Muslims in India are struggling with their language, dress and very identity. As India has progressed, they have been left behind. I respect Indian progress a lot and I work with Indians in my profession, but I struggle to adjust to this insane but unanimous answer to the situation of Muslims India: discriminatory property practices against Muslims are because you never know when a Muslim will marry again and throw a wrench into property transfer laws; and Muslims have large families and thus unable to provide for their children's proper education and thus have few jobs in our company.

The facts are: polygamy is still practised among Hindus; historical populatoin ratios show that Hindus have an equal procreation rate; and historical Muslims with larger families and more wives were the most educated in India, and their language was, and is, the de-facto national language. The grounds for the two-nation theory are more relevant today – in the day of mass media serving majority biases everywhere in the world, and a general lack of honour.

Today's Pakistan has non-discernible discriminatory practices on property; and even with a very tiny Hindu population, two recently active Hindus come to mind: a Supreme Court Justice (and acting Chief Justice) Bhagwan Das, and the leading spin wicket-taker, active Test cricketer Danish Kaneria.

Unfortunately, communal violence and subjugation of the helpless is a tradition of the Indian sub-continent, and I have yet to come across any metric in which religious or communal violence in India has not exceeded that in Pakistan: killing unborn and born girls, religious riots, burning alive of Christian priests and untouchable converts, Assamese and Maoist insurrection, etc.

India is economically better and politically more stable than Pakistan due to a marginally better rule of law: Pakistanis have realized that and are working to correct it. But in the treatment of other human beings, grinding poverty and subjugation of the under-privileged, India can learn a lot from Pakistan, even from just one Pakistani – Edhi.

As I write this – there is high alert in Indian Punjab due to religious strife, four separate Maoists terrorist attacks (with bombs and dead people) in central India due to oppression of poor people, and an explosion in a Rawalpindi mosque by Islamic fanatics. Guess which made the news! Modern media only reinforces existing biases in order to sell – and look at the sad mess it has made.

India is on a high right now, and it has earned it, but its Pakistan-bashing will backfire as the only long-term strategy is peace and trust between these neighbours, not name-calling and finger-pointing. Such opportunistic behaviour only strengthens what sub-continent Muslims have suspected since 1938, and Iqbal analysed in 1930. Even now, the Congress calculation that Pakistan will self-destruct is wrong. Even more wrong than when the new state was a helpless mass of people with a dying founder.

East Pakistan

The partition in 1947 was during a period of colonialism when administering far-off lands was still possible, and the partition was based on principles disputed among two parties. Iqbal's original speech did not include Bengal although Bengal had been once partitioned on religious grounds in 1905. It was only when majority-area principles were applied that the realisation of East Pakistan became a reality.

Even if East Pakistan existed today, it would have been a logistical nightmare to manage a country divided in today's information age and era of open markets. The majority of East Pakistan's trade would have been with India, or if not, would have been heavily subsidized by West Pakistan. Also, its shared language and script with West Bengal are a distinct reality.

So, the calculation that East Bengal would become independent was correct, but the fact that Bangladesh has not been annexed by India, nor is it politically feasible to do so – further proves the two-nation theory

It is very flawed logic that argues that the independence of Bangladesh disproves the two-nation theory. The two-nation theory was not about country called Pakistan, it was about relative autonomy for Indian Muslims, envisioned as a Hindustan and Pakistan within a united India. For 15 years, the political entity of Pakistan was preceded by an amorphous entity of Pakistan, which remained a loosely defined term of Muslim autonomous regions until then end of 1946. The fact that Bangladesh decided not to join India in 1971 proves the two-nation theory.

Portions of the West Pakistani army stationed in East Pakistan made strategic, moral and tactical mistakes, and were defeated by India. The independence of Bangladesh was exactly the same strategic error that Congress had made in 1946: West Pakistan continued to ignore the political evolution and national aspirations of the Bengalis and did not put in place constitutional safeguards.

In stark terms, East Bengal was a trust set up by the British Independence Act, to be managed by Pakistan until it became independent. It could have been handled better, but it was not. It is done, get over it. It is not, and never was, of any huge significance to West Pakistanis; if it was, the outcome could have been much different. It is, however, a huge boon for armchair analysts and Pakistani-hating foreigners, and self-loathing Pakistanis.

The Future of the Subcontinent

We all agree that the future is peace and respect for each other. The general Pakistani's attitude towards India is of wariness but of respect due a legitimate country. The reality is much different in India. In the words of Saeed Naqvi, an Indian Muslim (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\09\13\story_13-9-2009_pg3_3)

(Doordarshan's) “... Newstrack magazine assembled after the demolition of Babri Masjid is an eye opener. The first scene after the demolition shows a group of women in a circle, clapping and singing the following song:

Ab yeh jhanda lahrayega; Saarey Pakistan pe! (Now our flag will flutter over all of Pakistan)

The next scene focuses on young men, wearing saffron bands, jabbing the air with lances and trishuls.

Bomb girey-ga Pakistan pe! (Bombs will fall on Pakistan)

A swamiji is then slowly brought into focus. In a booming voice, the swami announces his itinerary. “Abhi hamein Lahore jaana hai, Rawalpindi jaana hai.” (Now our destinations are Lahore and Rawalpindi)

Inevitably, the camera then focuses on Bal Thackeray who, pleased as punch, says with finality: “Let the Muslims go to Pakistan.” No mention of Rama or Babur in all of this. Those were just excuses for the saffron movement which had played on the subconscious prejudice linking Muslims with Pakistan. You hate one and you hate both.
. . . .

What can be done?

Well, if someone of stature in the Congress were to find an occasion to make the following statement: “It is a travesty to blame Muslims for India’s partition. For a set of compelling reasons, a host of interests which included the Congress had to acquiesce in partition at that momentous period in Indian history.” This line must go down to the mofussil Congress worker. The turf of communalism will not be so fertile then.”

As the largest country in the subcontinent, and the most stable, it is up to India to show the respect for its own citizens and for its neighbors that will eventually bring peace to the region. All of India's neighbors look up to it as a big brother – but an equal brother and a role model. If India does not pick up this responsibility to lead honorably and according to the spirit of democracy, its internal and external strife will continue but the eventual outcome will not be optimal for India itself. The new-media-style repetition of lies and the maligning of others is of little use in the post-neocon era, and the concept of a greater India is as dead as that of a Greater Israel.