The resolution said: "The areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority, as in the northwestern and eastern zones of India, they should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." The phrase, 'independent states', indicated more than one.

This phrase came in handy to the people in East Pakistan during their freedom struggle. They argued that the creation of two 'independent states' was conceived in the very resolution which was put forward to demand for the creation of Pakistan. After some time, the phrase 'independent states' was brought to the notice of Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan. His explanation was that it was a typing mistake that spelt "state" into "states."

Subsequently, Khaliquzzaman, a UP Muslim League leader, said that he had changed the word "state" to "states" without "any intention" while drafting the resolution. However, another Muslim leader Ismail Khan, protested against the change of wording. In a letter to Khaliquzzaman dated October 20, Khan said: "For the word states in the original resolution, the world state was substituted without any comment from anybody." What astounded him, he said, was that "Mr Jinnah ruled that the word states was a misprint. How can a chairman disregard the phraseology of the written constitution and base his ruling on his own unrecorded memory?"

It is, however, significant that the word "states" continued to appear for many years in the Muslim League's constitution, printed under the supervision of Liaquat Ali Khan, Jinnah's lieutenant. When I asked Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan's president soon after the birth of Bangladesh in 1972, to comment on the misprint story, he laughingly said: "Quite a costly misprint; I must be careful about my stenographer." However, he clarified that before the creation of Bangladesh, the Bengali leaders raised this point. "But the creation of Pakistan was the result of a total settlement with the British; what the resolution said was not very material," he added. Jinnah's political secretary Khurshid also pooh-poohed the idea of two "independent states." He told me that the point of 'independent states' was raised by only "one or two unimportant persons" at a meeting of the Muslim legislators and others just before the creation of Pakistan. "None took it seriously," Khurshid added.

I believe there is more to it than meets the eye. It looks as if the idea of creating two Muslim states was there when the Pakistan proposal was taking shape. I found at London a report on the findings of a Muslim League committee constituted to implement the principle of the Lahore Resolution.

This committee recommended the formation of two Muslim States: one, in the northwest (Sind, Baluchistan, NWFP and Punjab); the other in northeast (Assam and Bengal excluding the districts of Bankura and Midnapur together with the district of Purnea from Bihar). It was estimated at that time that the Muslims in the northwestern state would be 20 out of 32 million, that is, 63 per cent of the population and in the northeastern state 31 out of 57 million, that is, 56 per cent.

Surprisingly, the committee did not say a word on Kashmir which subsequently became an issue between India and Pakistan and resulted in three wars plus hostilities at Kargil. However, the committee suggested a central machinery "concerned with external relations, defence, communications, customs and safeguards for minorities." Nothing like that happened after partition. India and Pakistan became two independent countries without any common subject or link. However, in 1971, East Pakistan broke away from West Pakistan.

The struggle for an autonomous state began from the day Jinnah said at Dhaka that people in East Pakistan would have to learn Urdu which was Pakistan's official language. Only a couple of years ago did Sheikh Hasina tell me that the foundation of Bangladesh was laid when there was official insistence on learning Urdu. The resentment as well as the feeling of neglect continued to grow in East Pakistan as the days went by. Still before March 26, all that Shiekh Mujibur Rahman wanted was autonomy within Pakistan.

Bhutto threw the first brick when he announced that his Pakistan People's Party (PPP) would not attend the National Assembly's session fixed for March 3, 1971. He explained to me later that it was neither a boycott nor a threat; it was only meant to get more time to reach "a broad settlement" with Mujib. Yahya Khan, then Martial Law Administrator, reportedly said that he was forced by Bhutto to postpone the session.

The postponement of the session triggered off a chain of events which could not be controlled. Before attending the session, fixed for March 26, Mujib wanted the military personnel to retreat to their barracks and lifting of martial law. He also demanded for immediate transfer of power to the elected representatives of East Pakistan. Mujib was arrested on March 25-26 night. But the liberation war continued till Bangaldesh freed itself.

More than three decades have passed since. All the three nations in the subcontinent are sovereign. But the equation they should have developed among them by now is lacking. This may well be the reason why fundamentalism and terrorism have spread in all the three countries. If they do not fight them collectively and concertedly, they may become victims of fanatics and gunmen.

Following a joint statement by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf, a new opportunity has arisen for normalising relations between India and Pakistan. Bangladesh should be part of the exercise. Why can't we free trade and travel from the shackles of age-old practices and rules?

"The problem is New Delhi," as editor of a leading English daily from Dhaka puts it. "India cannot tolerate a competitor from within the subcontinent, much less giving any substantial concession. Bangladesh knows it to its cost." This was more or less the impression of the Pakistan trade delegations which visited New Delhi recently. Probably, the governments suffer from mindset. But what I have seen after people-to-people contact in India and Pakistan gives me hope. There is a new awakening to the common heritage. People are seeking their baradari and going to places of their birth as if they are trying to reach their roots. The relationship between the two Bengals could deepen in the same way: people-to-people contact.

This is the time to establish a common market in the subcontinent as Europe has done. New Delhi has to allay the fears of Islamabad and Dhaka and create such a climate in the region that no neighbouring country should feel that it is being exploited. All want a share in the development. It can't be at the expense of one country or another.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.