Pakistan was one of the most dangerously stupid ideas in history. And it's illogical creation has everything to do with its current state. It was the first ever country created "for Muslims". Sure there had been theocracies all through Islamic and even Christian history. But these were states ruled by dynasties who pledged their allegiance to some religious authority. Their existence or boundaries were not defined by religion. Pakistan changed that. It was an idea of a nation that existed for Islam, not a nation ruled by a dynasty that adhered to Islam. Of course behind this high sounding ideal lay the same old battle for land and power - a battle that had taken the form of a civil war. Which is why at that moment there was no point trying to prevent its formation and causing more bloodshed. But ever since its creation, this fundamental mistake of making religion a unifying national identity has led to one catastrophic development after another. The most damning consequence has been a constant and disproportionate focus on India as the "other". This continuing insecurity stems from a need to define itself as a separate country that has historically been different from India. That of course is impossible to do, so the only recourse is to go back to that original mistake and make it even bigger by appealing to a more and more extremist version of Islam. Its creation as a separate country based on religion has allowed the most dangerous development of all: its armed forces have become a tool for promoting religious nuts. Once the idea of protecting the religion has been succesfully sold, it won't stop at simply creating a nation. The threat, being almost totally imaginary, can always be invoked to achieve any political aim. So the new threat are Ahmadiyyas and Shias, who are apparently not Muslim enough. Zia ul Haq was no religious man. He simply sought to strengthen his military with US help and offered his country as a training ground for mujahideen in return. But in the process he both militarised the community and communalised the military. He was able to do what he did only by appealing to the strange idea of Pakistan. It's no accident that the country keeps slipping into military dictatorship. Its very existence is defined by its insecurity. It's also no accident that rather than all the countries that have adhered to Islamic law for centuries, it's Pakistan that has become notorious for religious extremism. From the Arab countries to Central Asia, extremist groups everywhere send their boys to Pakistan to receive training. It is the only country created with the specific agenda of "protecting" Islam. This rationale justifies every political and military strategy aimed at manipulating the most gullible minds in the name of Islam.
Yes, all national boundaries are arbitrary to some extent. But when they evolve over time they gradually become natural. When they are created by a stroke of a pen based on some artificial logic, they become conflict zones. The breakup of Ottoman empire created many such conflict zones, most notably Israel. This is another country created on the same strange basis of protecting a religion. Imagine the weirdness of this logic: we can't protect you in our own homeland so we will settle you in someone else's.
I'll be the first to admit that even the idea of India has many such inherent contradictions. The most natural boundaries are, well, natural ones. As I said, geography is the most logical guide. Even culture and language is a by-product of geography. This is why no Indic empire ever included the Himalayan kingdoms. Uttarakhand and Himachal were parts of the Nepali nation till the Brits annexed them - literally for the purpose of 'chilling'. Similarly, the dense forests of Chhatisgarh had been left to their own devices by most rulers and never really formed a part of any empire, and even today it is harder to 'sell' nationalism in that region. No pan-Indian empire ever reached the deep south either, which is why that region too has a strong independent identity. So yes, India too is struggling with its own contradictions in trying to define the idea of nationhood. But whatever else the idea of India may or may not include, it had historically always included the area east of Indus, i.e. Punjab and Sindh.
Now I don't know how to correct this historical blunder. I hope the ordinary people of Pakistan find their voice and the authorities find a better reason for the country to exist. What I do know is that promoting the idea of a Hindu nation will be an equally massive blunder for us. In fact Hindu organizations did play a significant role in selling the idea of Pakistan. In this day and age, uniting people in the name of some religion that most of them don't even understand, is the worst possible way of channeling their energies. Let's not fall into that trap.
