The theory according to which Hindus and Muslims of the Indian subcontinent constituted two distinct nations and therefore needed separate states to pursue their respective destinies has proven to be incorrect; advocating the view that "they (India and Pakistan) will bitterly regret the decision they are about to take". 1 The problem with the “two-nation theory” was that it treated the people of South Asia as two homogeneous groups of Hindus and Muslims, without taking into account the vast cultural, ethnic and linguistic differences that contribute to the colorful and vibrant mosaic that constitutes the subcontinent. This theory sought to link a Muslim in Karachi with one in Calcutta and a Hindu in Lahore with one in Lucknow. The reality is very different. A Bengali Muslim has much more in common with a Hindu from Calcutta than with a Punjabi Muslim, while a Pashtun from Durra is closer culturally and ethnically to his cousin from Jalalabad in Afghanistan than to a Muslim from Chittagaon. The real differences have been masked by the oversimplification on which the two-nation theory is based. “Leaving behind tens of thousands of dead and dying sacrificial offerings for freedom,” 2 million Muslims and Hindus emigrated in both directions in 1947. Millions more choose to stay where they were, unable to leave behind all they have gathered , "little by little" bit through one's own efforts.'3 The fact that even after partition India continued to have a significant Muslim population weakened the concept on which Pakistan was created. The creation of Pakistan created a permanent problem for India. “Partition would not solve the communal problem, but would make it a permanent feature of the country.”4 The questionable premise was further eroded by the separation of East Pakistan in 1971, creating a third state in the subcontinent, each with around 150 million Muslims. Detractors of