The simple one line answer to this is : "THIS IS NOT Iqbal's nor Jinnah's Pakistan anymore".
These man and their status are increasingly only confined here.
Whatever the cause (failure or not regarding following Jinnah or Iqbal's vision of Pakistan) - the result
for India is the same. Pakistan is no longer a defense for India.
The political Unification of small Indian kingdoms has ensured that we do not need physical defense from Central Asia anymore - a potent Military is available and increasing economic activity allows GoI to spend on security infrastructure.
What Pakistan needed to do for India - was to provide an ideological cushion to Indian Muslims and take Ideological cushion from Indian Muslims from the Middle Eastern ideological onslaught. Pakistan went a 180 degrees to that wish of Iqbal. Pakistan embraced the Middle Eastern views to be able to counter India.
So now that presents a hard question for India that must be looked at
dispassionately ie while being divorced from historical backgrounds and ensuing biases
.
1. While Pakistan does prevent a physical route for Middle Eastern terror groups access to India - it promotes another kind of terror threat to India. Now while Pakistan in the long past did control these groups, it no longer controls them.
The net result for India is that ISIS would prove to be
marginally more dangerous than their predecessors in terms of LeT/JuD, HuM and JeM.
A very strong Military prevents any kind of conventional threat to India, only a subconventional one.
2. What Pakistan could do effectively -be a strong ideological defense from the ideology of terror, Pakistan
deliberately chose not to - and instead promoted this ideology for almost 3 decades!
If you look at this
objectively, you will realize that Pakistans existence as a viable state only marginally improves India's security in non-conventional theaters while impacting India's clout internationally.
A teetering Pakistan would diminish India's internal secuirity marginally, but would massively increase India's clout globally.
The answer is not as clear cut as you might like in believing that Pakistan is a net provider of safety to India.
You may be right in saying that Iqbal may have meant ideologically (initially he was hoping for entire Hindustan under Islamic rule). But you may not be so right in saying that Pakistan provides no ideological defense to India in modern times.
The ideological spread of the radicals like the ISIS in India is more because of the incompetency of the police (CBI and all), and the incompetence, and in some cases collusion, of politicians, than because of technological advancements.
Firstly, at all times since 7th century, people have been going to Hajj from India. Even if they were to miss out on these recent technological developments, they could easily import those ideologies from the Gulf (it has happened before). Even now, an average of 15,000 clerics from the Gulf region come over to India each year to give lectures in the seminaries. No technological advancement can match that sort of direct access. Stop those clerics from entering India and a great part of this problem will be solved.
Secondly, the effect of this specific ideology when seen in Pakistan (Pakistan will always be affected by Islamic radicalism before it hits India), serves as an alarm bell in India. So whichever way it goes, effects in Pakistan can be seen as a future possibility in India and the threat shall be handled promptly.
So even if technology were to play as major a part as you say, India will have the advantage of hind-sight - and it is a big advantage!
A lot of Indians (including me) go rabid against the Saudis, even when we never had any direct confrontation with the Saudis on any subject, simply because Indians can see the Saudi effect in Pakistan, and have experienced its spillover in India.
But think about Pakistan - it has been taking direct ideological hits from Saudi Arabia time and again, and kept giving us Indians the much needed lessons on what the future would hold unless we act in time.
