The Indian Congress leaders in their formative years of struggle for independence had realised the perils of a theology/ethnicity-based state comprising a huge and nearly impossible mix of religions and races in the South Asian British colony — the Indian subcontinent.In the history of the subcontinent there has been no political precedence for such an entity.The British were wise to rule without reference to religion. Similarly, the longest-lasting, and the last of the Muslim Indian empires, the Mughals, were mindful not to claim a Muslim caliphate or emirate.They remained by and large secular, and continued to strive for harmony between religions and races under their rule. Emperor Akbar epitomised that particularly tolerantpolicy. The Mughal rule was an immediate, indigenous and objective lesson for the Congress leaders in future articulation of rule over a diverse mix.Thus they were careful not to agitate for a Hindu rashtra (nation) and the like.Their secular strategy paid off handsomely as large numbers of Indian Muslims and followers of other religions saw space for themselves and joined their struggle. They knew that a democratic and egalitarian dispensation was the glue that could keep such a huge,disharmonious mass together. However, their search for a future secular state framework suffered a bad fall as in their overflowing zest they overlooked major historic interlocking factors that had gone into state building in this part of the world. The British occupation did not come about in a traditional,upfrontvictorious military campaign by an invading army but established through guile, treachery and bribes. For that purpose they had to buy loyalties, subvert courts and twist treatieswith every other king, sultan and maharaja in their way.Therefore, they were not considered in the same league as that of Ashoka, Kanishka, RajaPorus, Alexander the Great, Taimur,Mehmood, or Mughals. The British were regarded more as ingrate usurpers than lofty conquerors.This uncharitable popular sentiment was further compounded when they tried to play Hindus against Muslims in the hope to subdue and divert Muslim ire over the treacherous loss of their sovereignty at the hands of the British. During the siege of Delhi in 1857 they had clearly realised the centuries-old political and social bonding between these two larger communities and otherswithin the Mughal India. Continued existence of this remarkable bonding could destabilise their rule at any point in time, therefore it had to be undone.They worked on Muslim revulsion towards British rule, gradually distancing them from levers of power and filling the space with Hindu aspirants. The success of the Britishin pitting the two against each other, and creating competing mindsets became apparent when the Congress leadership refused to take into account the driving Muslim sentiment regarding constitutional guarantees in future political structure of the independent India.That indefensible shortsightedness threw Muslim psyche into the fear of being unacceptably overwhelmed once again, this time by the Hindu majority. This was the great tipping point that changed the course of the history of the subcontinent. Mohammad Ali Jinnah was quick to sense the enormity of the forthcoming situation,and, most remarkably, tabled the demand for Pakistan.He was now busy cutting losses and the time was short as the British Indian Empire was on the homeward retreat.Things could become messy if a resolute stand was not taken. The Congress leadership realised their galactic blunder for refusing to provide the constitutional guarantees thatthe Muslim leadership had demanded to remain within the united India but the time had run out. Whatever they could reluctantly muster was insufficient; it was too little and too late.By then the Pakistan movement had reached a point of no return.India had to be partitioned with the horrific immediate and future consequences that nobody could imagine but which would haunt the two nations for a long time. The Congress did well in keeping clear of the religious-communal stream and devised a secular constitution that has guaranteed the integrity of their country.That did not happen in Pakistan.Religious political parties were able to intimidate and overpower the rest, and a religiously coloured constitution was assembled, which laid the foundation of the skewed course of the country’s future political direction, and, eventually, was part of the lesser known drivers of its break-up in 1971.It has further sub-divided the society into sectarian factions. Islam was presented as the only basis of Pakistani nationalism, which was historically and traditionally an untenable concept of statehood.They tried to push geography,culture, language, distance, climate and other faiths out of the ring with catastrophic consequences. A much more sublime and wholesomely inclusive concept than religion was needed to build a nation that our political philosophers and leaderships dismally failed to conceive and promote. Our clergy was quick to isolate and condemn any dissenting or questioning voices, whichwere eventually choked and came to an end.This should tell us the reason why we are in the state of utter confusion and directionless-ness that we are in today.Pakistan is none of the either.All kinds of dark and grotesque derivatives of Islamic ideology are descending upon Pakistan;from Khurasan caliphate andTaliban emirate toHizbut-Tahrir,Salafis,Takfiris, al-Qaeda,Daesh, this lashkar or that fidayeen, to quite a few other varieties of deeply paranoidpsychosis. Quite commendably, we are still managing to retain our balance.There has to besome magic in the Indus waters or the Himalayan breeze. India retained her socio-constitutional sanity despite sporadic surges in anti-Muslim riots and sentiments untilthe early 1980s. The reasons were that the constitutional provisions related to minorities were fairly studiously observed, and the state visibly distanced itself from the communal fray, successfully maintaining her moral high ground.Until then nobody took the RSS seriously, nor felt threatened by their particularly pugnacious ultraHindu, nationalist ideology. The late prime minister, Indira Gandhi’s declaration of emergency,persecution of Sikhs and loss of substance in the ruling Congress leadership, and a proxy media led to the rise of BJP, an RSS offshoot and surrogate.A stark reality of violability of the sacrosanct constitution and vulnerability gripped the minorities and emboldened the majority Hindu right led by the BJP, RSS, VHP and the like. The BJP was returned to power in the centre, and with that India reached a fork in her history.The world looked on in foreboding silence as India opted for a coercive Hindu polity rather than an inclusive secular and tested one.It is a matter of debate whether aggressive Hindu nationalism was the result of an emphatic Islam in and around India, or it kicked off the search for strident religious identity among Muslims in the subcontinent, particularly in Pakistan.However, both happened in such quick succession that they might appear simultaneous to some.Those who talk of de-hyphenating the two countries may have to seriously rethink. Prime MinisterNarendra Modi and his men’s appearance at the Indian political centrestage fresh from the anti-Muslim carnage in Gujarathas brought about tectonic changes in how India seems to view herself on that score.It can be deduced that the state helping to kill a few thousand fellow Muslims in India is acceptable.That those who differ from the official ultra Hindu nationalist dogma should be persecuted and hounded as anti-state. That beefeaters, a ridiculous notion at that as if it was a clandestine cult,must be clubbed to death,burnt alive or hung by the trees.That Indian Muslims, Urdu-speaking people, are ‘Pakistanis’, and,therefore traitors until proven Indian.That conscientious journalists are ‘presstitutes’.That the Jawaharlal Nehru University is a den of immoral and licentious men and women and not a prestigious university of India just because some students there had the courage to differ from the ruling BJP’s official line. Religions have a duty to serve and not subvert humanity.A destructive saffron storm is ominously rising with the help of insidious state patronage. Dissenters are being terrorised and legitimate debate being ruthlessly eliminated.India must resolve to resist before the storm hits.If it does not there will be a moral and social tragedy of cinematic proportions. The subcontinent will simply fall apart. The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan army and can be reached at clay.potter@hotmail.com