The two (later three) sovereign states of India and Pakistan had been born – the struggles of the last century (from the Mutiny/First War of Independence to Independence itself) had been resolved at the grand political level, but the new states had yet to show themselves capable of their own cohesive integration and survival while simultaneously functioning through representative democratic constitutions. If they could achieve this, then this would be something entirely new in the history of South Asia, and the Partition of 1947, accepted at the last moment as the only means of achieving this goal, would possibly have been a price worth paying. In India, Nehru and the Central Government took over a well-functioning system of bureaucracy, and Nehru’s national following and pre-eminence over any other Congress politician – whose bases were more often regional than national – was some sort of guarantee of national integrity in the short term at least – much as the personal standing of Tito (an ally of Nehru) ensured Yugoslavia’s survival for some decades after World War II. India also had development strategies and plans, a result of debates about economic management that had been conducted in Congress for some time before independence. Pakistan had fragmented bits of administration and services – the severed ends of many tentacles – which had to be linked together. It also had to find out what its purposes and strategies were. After all, the aim of the Pakistan movement within the Muslim League had now been achieved. The idea of Pakistan had attracted atheists, communists, poets and soldiers as much as the Muslim clergy. Now, it was necessary to decide if it was to be theocratic or secular, socialist or capitalist.