It's been sixty years since Britain handed India its independence and partitioned the eastern and northwestern regions of British India in August 1947 to create the new country of Pakistan. Since then, the two countries have experienced markedly different destinies.

While India has prospered politically and economically particularly of late, Pakistan has stumbled from the beginning and continues to experience numerous challenges. There are obvious differences in geography, as well as population — Pakistan has 160 million people to India's 1.1 billion. There is also religion: Pakistan is primarily Muslim, India predominantly Hindu.

Carleton political scientist, Elliot Tepper (Carleton University)

Professor Elliot Tepper, a specialist in Asian Studies at Carleton University says the big differences between the two countries can be witnessed in just about every sphere of politics, economics and society. He spoke with CBCNews.ca contributor Georgie Binks.

Prof. Tepper, how do you characterize India and Pakistan at this point in their history?

India is clearly a successful democratic state with a booming economy and an ever expanding inclusiveness in society. Pakistan, unfortunately, remains in perilous condition — it's experienced a roller-coaster ride politically and economically for years now.

There were times, in the early days, when it outperformed India, but it falls into periods of economic and political disarray. It's now rebounded from near collapse to some sustained growth.

On the positive side, agriculture has been the bedrock of the economy through thick and thin. The country also has the support of an able entrepreneurial group, as well as expatriates who have returned to invest in the Pakistan economy.

When did the inequity between the two countries begin?

Pakistan got off on the wrong foot from the beginning and it's been very difficult for the country to regain its balance. At partition, India inherited a coherent territorial entity with much of British India's wealth, whereas Pakistan got the perimeter of the subcontinent.

Pakistan's founding father, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, referred to the land they were given as 'truncated' and 'moth-eaten.' At the time of partition, the British, in Pakistan's opinion, did not deliver in terms of British Imperial possessions. Pakistan's bureaucrats started off using overturned crates as desks while India received a greater share of the spoils of British Imperialism.

How much of Pakistan's woes are of its own doing and what can be attributed to outside forces?

The country's political leadership never prepared for independence. They didn't start working on it until 1940, while India was preparing in the 1930s.

The leadership in India was very coherent and maintained that coherence until well after independence with prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru holding power for a number of years. In Pakistan, Jinnah's goal was to 'Get the State.'

He chose not to make a plan for what an independent Pakistan would be and then he died immediately after independence. His only possible successor died shortly after that. As well, a constitutional order was never established in Pakistan. Instead of becoming prime minister, Jinnah became governor general.

On the other hand, India has all the trappings of constitutionalism with a free press, a place for dissenting voices as well as a number of political parties.

In 1971, eastern Pakistan seceded as the independent state of Bangladesh. What impact did that have on Pakistan?

It meant that the area with the greatest concentration of natural wealth in east Pakistan disappeared leaving west Pakistan reeling. Not only did Pakistan have to recover from a nasty war [surrounding the secession] but it lost valuable resources.

How might the potential return of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto affect Pakistan's future?

Had Benazir Bhutto come back a couple of years ago, she would have electrified the country. Her return would have been a transformative act, although she would have immediately been thrown in jail. Coming back now, after making a deal with the military [Bhutto has been negotiating her comeback with President Pervez Musharraf, who is also commander in chief of the army] makes the impact of her return less certain.

Her reputation is severely tarnished by her previous two terms in office coupled with the fact that her husband was widely alleged to have been involved in corrupt activities. However, if she came back as an opponent of military rule, that would give her great credibility.

There is still a struggle between moderates and Islamic extremists in the country. In terms of today's political scenario, does the future for Pakistan look bleak or positive?

What we've had is brief periods of democratic rule, where the politicians knew they could be thrown out at any time, followed by the return of the military saying they will clean up the mess. Parties never got to establish themselves and that includes Benazir Bhutto.

Few people are optimistic for Pakistan. The oscillation between political parties and the military leaves very few political options. The only other option is the rise of the Islamic right and no one in the settled parts of Pakistan would welcome that. The politically literate class is as fearful of Taliban-ization as anyone else.

If there is to be stability, political consensus and the beginning of a constitutional order in Pakistan, then everyone would be more optimistic. Some people think it might be a better option for India to spend time and resources reinforcing stability in Pakistan rather than creating instability.

Because of its proximity to Afghanistan, and the U.S. interest in the country for help in fighting the 'war on terrorism,' everyone wants a stable and prosperous Pakistan. That may bring progress to the country in the future.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]