Pakistan and India have turned 60. On August 14 (Pakistan) and 15 (India), the two countries celebrated six decades of independence from the British (and each other, following a bloody partition).

Despite its fractious nature and lack of homogeneity, India has done well in rooting itself as a functional democracy and emerging as an economic giant. Pakistan has had a rough ride politically -- swinging between military regimes and elected governments -- but is tasting its share of economic growth. Bound by a common history and torn apart by politics, the countries are yet to find common ground to solve, as we love to call them, "outstanding issues" (read Kashmir, militancy) and have waged wars over them. The hangover from the partition, and the politics that led to it, was a bad one.

Having been born and raised in a free India, I believe the time has come for us to stop swearing at our neighbors and start some housecleaning. It's nation-building time. No surprises when we find that our internal challenges can be far more daunting than external threats.

Both India and Pakistan are at crucial junctures where we need to define clearly our identities as nations. What sets of values define our countries and/or set us apart? How do we want to be recognized? Are our values entrenched clearly enough for the rest of the world to count on us to abide by them when the going gets tough?

PAKISTAN: Muslim Democracy? Secular democracy? Authoritarian? Moderate Islamic State? None of the above? Unlike India, Pakistan has struggled with its political identity. The country has gone from democracy to dictatorship and back so seamlessly that it has left many of us, for who the right to vote is a given, flustered about what the people of the country really want. The confusion begins with founder Muhammed Ali Jinnah's original vision for Pakistan: a secular Muslim-majority nation. In his August 11, 1947 address he had said:

You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.

But the country didn't quite take the shape of Jinnah's vision. Pakistan's image in the world has been that of an Islamic nation, guided by the religion, while India is viewed to have established the separation of state and religion far more definitively.

Today Pakistan is at a turning point in its political history. It is poised for a change that is likely to be far more sustainable than the ones in the past. Unlike what we expect of autocrats and their regimes, President General Pervez Musharraf has faced some scathing civil opposition at home and has even reversed unpopular decisions, caving in to public pressure. He allowed (had to?) the Supreme Court to reinstate Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry who he had suspended alleging corruption, and reportedly warded off pressure to declare a state of emergency in the country.

An election is due in Pakistan this year. The country will take one more stab at democracy. This may also be a good time for the people to decide what kind of democracy they want. Do Pakistanis want their country to be a moderate Muslim state or a secular democracy as Jinnah had originally conceived? Will religion be a private matter or will all and sundry sit on judgment? Who gets to define what is Pakistani?

This curious "Sonnet 1947" by Freddie on MicroPakistan gets to the heart of the question:

How shall I compare thee to the Promised Land?
A dream unfulfilled, a desire unquenched,
Yours is a concept gone badly out of hand,
Soiled by murderous enmities deep entrenched.
Are you the successor to the Caliphate,
Bringing salvation to your constituents-
Or are you just another secular state?
Too often have our hopes been viciously bent.
Who is the king of your sublime destiny,
What do you profess is your vital essence?
Are we to anticipate some harmony,
Or just more ineffectual effervescence?
You are an enigmatic wish scarce defined,
Thy foreboding future yet to be divined.

The skepticism can be stark sometimes. Anjum Niaz paints a bleak picture of Pakistan past and present in Dawn's Weekly Magazine. (Dawn, incidentally was founded by Jinnah). Embodying herself as Pakistan, she writes:

Once upon a time, I was a wiz kid, even South Korea coveted my five-year-plan; today I am a beggar going around with a beggar’s bowl. My 1973 Constitution lies mauled; my parliament house has non-serious people; my supreme court has had judges without a backbone.

They say when you grow old and useless, you turn to religion. How true! Indeed I have allowed religion to overtake my life. It’s my last refuge against starvation, ignorance, disease, deprivation and exploitation by the wealthy. I am 24/7 seized with performing religious rituals that give me a lot more satisfaction than community service. I live for myself and my God. Life hereafter has more lure for me than this temporary abode. So brain dead am I, that strapping a suicide jacket around me is no biggie. I am bloodthirsty and want to kill infidels. Never mind if in the process I die: death is cheap and found in plenty around the countryside. Death vendors are like the Pied Piper of Hamelin who lured rats and later kids to destruction.

The day is not distant when the Pied Pipers of Pakistan (PPP) will show me their path to paradise. One road will lead to suicide bombers newly minted by religious extremists and the other will lead to Benazir Bhutto sweeping the polls and promising enlightened liberalisation. Which PPP will eventually rule me is for you to decide. Personally, both are lethal for my survival!

I can see where the skepticism comes from. I recall my parents' disillusionment with India in the 80s and early 90s, a period even I remember as being marred by acute corruption, religious and regional factionalism, and a near absence of purpose. "India's got no future", was a common lament.

But things got better. A lot better. The fact that young Pakistanis are discussing their country's destiny cannot but be good. A lively discussion to this end is going on at Pakistaniat.com (All Things Pakistan) What was Jinnah's vision for Pakistan and should today's Pakistani care? Yasser Latif Hamdani writes :

So what did Jinnah stand for?
He stood for justice and fair play for every one regardless of religion caste or creed. Let us make a solemn promise to ourselves on this 11th August Day (or the day I like to call Jinnah’s Pakistan Day) that we shall honor this vision of Pakistan as a pluralist, inclusive and progressive democratic state.

(Note that people have contradicted the "secular vision" of Jinnah, saying he meant Pakistan to be an Islamic state. I am going by the predominant sentiment expressed in these discussions).

Owais writes at Life According to Me:

I cannot accept to live in a society where someone will kill me for my beliefs. I don’t want to be part of the system that represses women and minorities and scares the majority in silence. If they want to look at a model Islamic society they should look towards some of the Western European states. They are the perfect embodiment of a true Islamic state. They promote education and scientific progress, there is universal healthcare, and the state takes care of the sick and the elderly. There is freedom of expression, individual action and religion. There is a rule of law, a culture of tolerance and an environment of peace. There is an accountability of rulers and everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. There is progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth. This is the true essence of Islam and although their society has vices but no one is forced to adopt them. Just like the earlier days of Islam. This is what I want for my country.

If Pakistan chooses democracy and free will as its destiny, the long, hard journey has just begun. Establishing a free democratic society is like raising a child. It needs to be nurtured and protected. Like a child, democracy may falter, fall ill, or even fail, but as parents of that ideal, we have to get in back of tracks and raise it to be a strong adult. It requires a single-minded devotion to the preserving the idea. If you want it to work, democracy cannot be an alternative. It has to be the only option.

INDIA: Fortunately for India, staying democratic has ceased to be an issue. We as a people have learned, however poorly, the value of the vote. There is no immediate fear of losing it all to a military coup. Now comes the bigger challenge.

As we free ourselves from the shackles of having to scrape for basic needs like food, clothing, shelter and education, we are beginning to claim ownership of democratic values, a crucial one being freedom of expression.

"Freedom of speech and expression " is a fancy phrase and looks pretty in the Constitution. But it takes dedication and tolerance to put those words into practice.

I don't want to undermine other pressing issues the nation is faced with right now: devastating floods and a highly-troubled northeast, to start with. These are in-your-face issues that India clearly has to deal with.

I am concerned about the soul. For long we have exercised self-restraint, especially in speech. A lot us kept our opinions on touchy topics like religion and tradition to ourselves. We let things be. That is changing. People are becoming more vocal and I welcome the change. However unpopular, exchanging and debating ideas is the only way forward in a democracy.

So why am I worried? Take the case of award-winning Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin. Briefly, Nasrin, a feminist physician turned radical author, has among other things, repeatedly questioned the treatment of women under the Islamic faith. Almost all her books are banned in her home country and she has a fatwa on her head. She has been living in exile in Europe for years. Recently, she moved to the Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) and hopes to get an Indian citizenship.

Last week, Nasrin was attacked, by elected representatives of the state legislature, at the Press Club in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, where she was releasing the local language edition of one of her books. She was accused of denigrating Islam and the attackers wanted the government to send her packing to Bangladesh. Cases have been filed (one against herself for instigating communal feelings between groups) and she has attracted an Indian fatwa too, which I guess has to be illegal in India.

Leading Muslim personalities condemned the incident. Others were appalled by the lack of outrage.

I worry. Holding and expressing divergent views is an integral part of a democracy, even if that topic is religion. No matter what my faith, can I hope to raise questions about it without fearing for my life? And why should a largely tolerant majority allow a few to batter our morals?

Oregon-based Mohib Ahmad writes at Indianmuslims

More worrisome is the prospect that almost every group in India based on either religious, linguistic or casteist lines is becoming increasingly violent while protesting. It is a very dangerous trend for our democracy and a threat to the values we have been espousing for centuries. As I wrote previously, freedom of expression is supreme without any ifs and buts. If you don’t agree with the content of a book, don’t buy it and encourage others not to read it. If you want to do more, write a better book. But violence and threats of violence should never be an option. We should be more confident of our beliefs and appreciate self-criticism.

Appalled by the attack, Amrita Rajan writes at Desicritics:

...Nasreen is not an Indian citizen; she is instead a guest in our country. A country I might add, that gives itself many airs about its traditions and culture, including a much-avowed system of hospitality, which, the last time I checked, does not include the murder of one's guests in one's home no matter how objectionable one might find them.
Nasreen has been nothing but complimentary about India and its democracy but in view of the SC ruling and the time-honored Indian tradition of throwing sops to criminals in the interests of hushing up that which we find uncomfortable (not to mention crass votebank politics), I have to wonder if her faith might not be misplaced.

A miffed New York-based physician, Munish Raizada, writes at Voice of India:

What a shame! Not only these so-called Muslims bring shame to Islam, they are denigrating India also. These acts are contrary to the Indian values. India stands for tolerance and freedom of expression. Religious fundamentalism is already bringing disrepute to us. We want it no more!

In an article in Hindustan Times, NDTV 24x7 managing editor Barkha Dutt -- one of Indian television's best-known journalists, questions civil society's selective outrage against the freedom of expression, especially in the Nasrin case. Notwithstanding the criticism that she may have spoken a day too soon (the issue has been in the news ever since), she successfully underscores the basic question of the Indian identity:

At the heart of the matter is a larger debate on whether political correctness has twisted our response to the principle of individual liberty. Have our politicians in particular been shaped by a kind of hypocrisy that makes their utterances on creative freedom just humbug and little else? ... So, protest peacefully by all means against the writings of Taslima Nasreen. Let there even be a genuine debate over whether India should get entangled in giving her political asylum. After all, the right to dissent is as sacred as the right to express. Call her lowbrow, offensive, inflammatory and an incendiary agent if that’s what you think she is. But draw the line at both assault and censorship. And let’s make sure we tell those who treat human beings like fatwa fodder that they have no place in a truly secular society.

A nation's character shines through during trying times. Now is the time for us to define our values. Civil disagreement or violent persecution? I am tilting towards the former.

Reading list:

• Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's address to the nation on August 14, 2007.
• Indian President Pratibha Patil's address to the nation on August 14, 2007.
• Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh address to the nation on August 15, 2007.
• Comparative data on countries celebrating their independence this month.