Though Bangladesh for some time had remained a part of Pakistan due to then propagated two nations theory that the Muslims and the Hindus were so different that they could not stay together, it has now been proved after loss of lives and shedding of blood that the two wings of then Pakistan ordained by the British colonial rulers to be one country were also vastly different.

Therefore it is no wonder that two persons heading similar institutions but of two countries so dissimilar linguistically, culturally, and in many other ways would also not be similar in thought.

Even in the olden days of the British rule, points out political analyst Robert Kaplan (The Lawless Frontier) "British civil administration extended only to Lahore, in the fertile Punjab." But the rest of Pakistan, he writes, the rugged border regions of Baluchistan, NWFP, the alkaline wasteland of Sind and the Hindukush and the Karakoram mountains has never been subdued by the British or anyone else.

Bengal, on the other hand, though no less rebellious, had an intellectual understanding of the freedom movement during the British Raj, prompting one eminent political leader to say that what Bengal thinks today the rest of India thinks tomorrow.

It would, however, be a travesty of history if one were to give full credit to Bengal for achieving Indian independence and the partition of the sub-continent. While both Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah were from Gujrat, Pandit Nehru, and many others were from different parts of India. Independence struggle was therefore a fruit of Indian unity as Pakistan was the result of then unity displayed by the Muslims of India though many preferred not to migrate to Pakistan.

The events of 1971 blew apart forever the myth that religion alone can be the basis of national unity and bore testimony to French Orientalist Ernest Renan's assertion that nations are basically unstable and are susceptible to collapse into divisions and sub-divisions based on clan, tribe, language, or religion.

The creation of Bangladesh and the collapse of Yugoslavia into several independent countries are testimony to the accuracy of Renan's thesis. Besides, "nation language," as seen in the use of Caribbean English which, as seen by Edward Braithwaite may be English in terms of its lexical features but is heavily influenced by African heritage in the Caribbean culture, and is not English "in its contours, its rhythm and timbre, its sound explosion." Similarly, the language spoken in the two parts of Bengal are different in experience and sensibility, with religion having profound influence on the culture of the two Bengals.

The point made in this discourse is that of the fragmentation of national personality even within the context of a nation-state, as in the case of the Pashtoons who never accepted the Durand Line drawn by the British envoy Sir Mortimer Durand in 1893 as the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It would be asinine to draw similarity between what the military leaders of the two states now distanced by more than one thousand miles had said in different context. For a few decades Pakistan and Bangladesh had shared history that could not form a nation and finally dissolved into two countries.

While democratic aspirations of the people are global and people's consent to govern is the prime requisite to gain legitimacy, both nationally and internationally, each country, particularly the developing ones who lack centuries old transformational experiences of hereditary monarchy, fascism, and communism, as opposed to the developed ones and who have reached the "end point of mankind's ideological evolution" in liberal democracy, should be given time to put their house in order.

Inordinate delay, however, in letting the people have the opportunity to elect their own governors and the process announced by the Election Commission (questioned by the political parties) that appears to be not only in violation of electoral rules and the judgment of the High Court but may also flawed in light of the religio-cultural background of the voters have raised concerns.

The Election Commission would be well advised to consult the main stakeholders (i.e. the political parties and the people) before taking any firm decision. The unsolicited advice from abroad, if received in the form of pressure, should be ignored. But advice and technical assistance given to hold a free and fair election should be welcomed.

One must be cognizant of the fact that the subaltern history is a matter of the past and in this age of globalization there should be no let up in the resistance to the new elite who presume to carry on the White Man's Burden. Indeed a famous sociologist had aptly observed that for a society to claim universal desirability while turning its back on others from which it is convinced it has nothing to learn is not only cultural elitism, it is cultural racism.

In the case of Bangladesh, we should not be swayed by external pressure that, however well intentioned, may not be conversant with the ground realities of the country. In the ultimate analysis, the people of Bangladesh who time and again have displayed enviable political maturity, are the ultimate judge and are expected to garland the good intentions of the interim government and other agencies who are determined to present to the people a politico-administrative structure bereft of the ills of the recent past.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.