This refers to an untimely and unrealistic article titled The Idea of Pakistan authored by Mr Shahid Javed Burki, published in Dawn of September 16, 2008. This seems to be a totally sponsored, untrue story which has been intentionally published to damage the personality of the father of the nation and to give vent to the real spirit of the creation of Pakistan. I vehemently condemn such stray writings of those biased-intellectuals who are bent upon creating doubts in the rank and file of the Pakistanis, especially the younger generation. O' Lord It is easy to make every body understand the spirit of the ideology of Pakistan and the meanings of the Two-Nation Theory but it is hard to make such pseudo intellectuals understand (though at heart they very well understand it) as to what actually meant when the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah so categorically said: "Hindus and Muslims can never evolve a common nationality since they belong to two different religious philosophies and social customs. They stand poles apart (and even today they stand poles apart). They don't interdine together nor do they intermarry because they belong to two different civilisations which are based on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Not only this, their concepts on life and of life are different. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and they have different episodes. Very often the hero of one is the foe of other." The above historically logical statement is a very clear answer to Mr Burki's argument regarding Two-Nation Theory and it is also enough proof to prove that there was least possibility of the two nations to live side by side peacefully in this vast subcontinent of South Asia after the end of the British rule. Should Mr Burki and his cunning discussant Anil Khilmani of John Hopkin's School believe that it was one hundred percent correct 70 years ago and, even now in the 21st century. It is more than one hundred percent correct that both the nations still have the same bitter feelings for each other which they had in the decades of thirties and forties. Since then the Pakistani nation has experienced Hindu enmity thrice in 1948, 1965 and 1971 respectively. It is a vicious fact that it was the same Hindu animosity and planned Indian military intervention in Eastern part of Pakistan which was responsible for its separation from its Western wing. At this point, it would be essential to mention that Pakistan was a viable state from the very beginning from every possible angle. Is it not true that it has made tremendous advances in various sectors and has proved that it was a sustainable political creation which had its century-long deep roots not only in the subcontinent but the world at large too. It may be clarified that creation of Pakistan was not a product of colonial heritage. It derives its origin from Islam which is a guiding principle for Muslims the world over. Hence, it cannot be co-joined with the example of the idea of Nigeria, South Africa or an idea of Malaysia. Likewise, it cannot be compared with Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and other countries of the Middle East which are all products of colonial division of the Muslim nation. It would be a historic fallacy to predict that Pakistani identity and Pakistani idea need to be defined on the basis of geography and not on the basis of culture and religion. Let me correct it by saying that it should not be forgotten that geographical division of the subcontinent was made on the basis of the Two-Nation Theory which clearly defines that this division took place on the basis of separate religions and cultures of Hindus and Muslims. The 3rd June Plan of 1947 was a clear-cut outcome of the Two-Nation Theory. There is no ambiguity in assessing this fact that the division of the subcontinent was made between the two major nations struggling for self-determination. Both of them were given their share as envisaged in the Plan as two separate nations. Let there be no doubt that both these nations are sovereign and independent and derive their guidance from their own concepts which are still different in nature as they were 70 years back. There should be least doubt that Pakistan was created on the solid ground of Pakistan Ideology. It was a hectic and heroic struggle of the Muslims in India who fought under the dynamic leadership of the unmatched Muslim leader in the person of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah who advocated the cause of Muslim India for many years. Hence can we afford to part with the Quaid's philosophy? Can his definition of the Two-Nation Theory be ignored which still exists forcefully? I strongly believe that there is no need to accept Mr Burki's definition which will give a serious set back to our national identity. I would question Mr Burki if he could afford to sacrifice his ancestral identity at this stage? I would also like to invite attention of the demagogic and perverse author and his notorious camp follower Anil Khilmani to please examine the spirit of the content of the great Quaid's letter addressed to Mr M K Gandhi in September 1944: "We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilisation, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all cannons of International law, we are a nation...can you not appreciate our point of view that we claim the right of self-determination as a nation and not as a territorial unit and that we are entitled to exercise our inherent right as a Muslim nation, which is our birth-right." It may also be noted that people like Mr Burki and a few others too keep on indulging in such practices of distorting historical facts and, we, on our part, make our humble effort to set the record straight. They are doing this mischief to please their masters. They are writing that which their masters wish them to write whereas the committed Pakistanis try to do justice to their national duty. Let the angry intellectuals do their nefarious job and the dedicated Pakistanis will continue to do theirs with the belief that one day the stray writers will come to their senses and would themselves confess that the idea of Pakistan has succeeded by all means and the concept of shared history even now is as impracticable as it was 70 years ago. They should, therefore, shun this baseless notion that creation of Pakistan was an artifact of the long British Rule in India. It must be borne in mind that Pakistan was there even when there was not a single Britisher in the subcontinent. Pakistan's edifice was erected the day the first Muslim stepped on the soil of India.