Partition was a mistake

[Logic note]

Dear AM

Pakistanies were Different from India .In what way ? Religion ? so Ideology of Pakistan is a secessionist ideology which broke a group of people based on only religion .
Now trying to equate this differentiation with differentiation between Indian and Zulus or with French is irrelevant .
We were one civilization, we follow one culture and we are from one linguistic group .
how long will you deny the truth ???

On the contrary, like I mentioned above, the only time I raise these issues is when Indians get on their moral high horse and pretend that their **** doesn't stink, while accusing Pakistan of supporting the insurgency in Kashmir and alleging its support for terrorist acts in India.

at least dabong is honest .. see his post on Re: Banned Kashmiri militant outfits re-emerging in Pakistan but as you say lets push it below the carpet

 

[salman nedian]

this is so funny , the whole energy and effort of Pakistan is to disprove the secularism and democracy in India . because accepting India as secular is acceptance that Idea of Pakistan was wrong . People of different faith can live together . and this obsession to prove the authenticity of their own existence has led Pakistan to always see everything with the narrow perception of jealousy .

I didn’t talk about India its fair enough if a nation wants to live separately than this is their right.

There is no jealousy, yes people of different faith can live together like we can see what had happened with Babri mosque, Golden temple and Christian churches in India.

 

[salman nedian]

AM, you talk about the atrocities by Indian soldiers but don't you think you take an easy way out regarding the 1971 events (which were on a much bigger, almost unimaginable scale) by trying to point out some mythical disputes between some unspecified historians (as though it disproves all the events that took place). Even though, I believe even your own Hamidur commission accepted that there were widespread atrocities and Niazi used to ask questions like: "How many Hindus did you kill today?".

I think Bangladeshis can better answer about that so called genocide in East Pakistan as we can see even at this forum that they are denying this. It was a propaganda used by India to attack East Pakistan.

By the way were you with Niazi at that time when he asked that question?

 

[Malang]

Let us define a few things, all as per my views

-----

1. What is Pakistan?

Pakistan was a homeland specially created for Indian Muslims, who chose religious loyalty over national loyalty, by partitioning portions of India(their motherland would be too bollywoodish) where Muslim League candidates had won in an election held prior to independence, and whose borders were arbitrarily defined by the British. Musims were to be the dominant and numerical superior community of this newly found nation and non-Muslims native to the areas which British decided to award to the Muslim League would be allowed to technically live freely in this newly found nation. It was envisaged that this nation of elitist Muslims, who chose religion over nation, would herald the second innings of the grand Muslim era of yore.

---
2. Reasons for creating Pakistan?

*Hindus and Muslims had now adopted beliefs which were antithetical to each other due to the successful divisive British policies.

*Muslims had always been the part of the ruling class of India but post-Mughal empire had lost their position of pre-eminence to an extent and post-independence they felt they would be relegated to a secondary position.

*Muslims and Hindus in large numbers were being influenced by sectarian leaders and religious zealots as a result they had become quite antagonistic to each other.

*For Muslims, Islamic teachings support loyalty to Islam over other competing beliefs and ideologies.

----

False reason which is thought of as creation of Pakistan:-

A. Pakistan was created because Muslims were being slaughtered by Hindus.

Refutations
1. This contradicts Gandhi's, Bacha Khan's and Singh's public support both of whom were against sectarianism.
2. British wouldn't have left India nor encountered such a massive revolt. India would've been severely weak.
3. This represents a quantum shift in Hindu and Muslim communities since in 1857 both fought against the British under the Islamic Mughal Banner, a symbol which both believed at the time to represent India. Even in history Muslims and Hindus had fought shoulder to shoulder for their king, land, beliefs against enemies.(who belonged to their religion too)
4. British divisive policies and the sectarian leaders who wanted to usurp power were responsible for the divide between Hindus and Muslims.

-----

B. Now a new line of though has emerged that Pakistan was always a "nation" distinct from India and India is not a nation per se but a collection of nations.

Why Pakistan is not a distinct nation:

1. It had some of its biggest proponents in non native Pakistanis.
2. Its borders were defined arbitrarily.
3. Like most Indian provinces, regions it was not ruled as a union. Hence in a sense it was not historically ruled as one nation
4. It was created due to religious loyalty in the paraphrased words of Gandhi, One fine day Indian Hindus converted to Islam and they automatically adopted a distinct national identity and a seperate motherland.
5. Pakistan too is not a homogeneous group (accept as per religion) but a rather heterogeneous group similar to India.
6. This ideology fosters a stronger sense of loyalty of native Pakistanis to Pakistan in non-religious terms.

Why India is a nation which is a collection of provinces and ethnicites rather than nations.

1. India is the name of a unique geographical area isolated by other areas due to its unique geographical feature and whose culture,beliefs, natives and ideals were different, unique and distinct from surrounding geographical areas and whose natives felt a sense of fraternity with each other due to their beliefs, history, culture, ideology.

2. Upon analyzing Indian History through (unRoadrunner like) eyes one finds that India is a heterogeneous entity but at the same time, the people of the subcontinent had similarity of culture, thought, beliefs which promoted a sense of identification and unity amongst the various Indians and which made Indian culture unique and distinct from cultures around it.

3. India since history has always been a collection of different provinces inhabitated by different ethnicities. Such proof is found in Mahabharata and Chanakya's Arthashashtra but all are identified as Indians.

4. Indian Subcontinental is a seperate tectonic, an unique entity (hence its called subcontinent). The mountains created as a result of collision of Indian tectonic plates colliding with the European and Asian tectonic plates which resulted in Himalayas, Hindukush mountains etc. sorrounding Indian subcontinent. Even Geographically Indian subcontinent is unique in that the flora and fauna of Indian subcontinent is distinct from other neighbouring areas.

(PS: other points welcome, this is my top-of the mind replies mostly and I would have to refer to some works to expand on this..
as for why Pakistan is a mistake and why is not a mistake depends on your POV might post on this topic too)

 

[Malang]

I didn’t talk about India its fair enough if a nation wants to live separately than this is their right.

By your logic:
if Balochis want to seperate why is there a problem?? Balochistan is a distinct nation from Pakistan...
Baloch culture, languge, genetics, terrain etc. all are different from say Punjabis...

There is no jealousy, yes people of different faith can live together like we can see what had happened with Babri mosque, Golden temple and Christian churches in India.

Been to UK?

Babri Masjid was a disused mosque brought down by zealots, It was not an action that had the backing of the state or of the majority. Zealots argued that this Mosque was created by destroying a Hindu temple that stood here.

Golden Temple has seen bloodshed many times and most of the times it was Sikhs fighting amongst Sikhs. Refer to history.

A few chrisitian churches were burnt in India, a few mosques bombed in US and UK, a few Hindu temples razed in Pakistan. Idiots are everywhere. Some burn places of worship of other religions sometimes of their own religions.

PS: I bet more mosques are attacked in Pakistan by Muslims than by Hindus in India.
People of same faith cannot too live together look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal etc...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India was British "India". A single entity, and quite separate from Hong Kong.

Doesn't matter. British India was nothing more than several States and peoples conquered one by one and put into a single colony for administrative purposes.

Just because the British combined the region into one for administrative purposes does not then somehow justify the argument that India was "one nation".

"India is as much a nation as the equator". Ring a bell? Even the British realized that all they had was a hodge podge of different peoples and nations under one administrative umbrella.

It was the Indian political elite that started thinking about a "United nation", out of that British administrative unit, and this myth of a united India has been in the making ever since.

Try reading up on what freedom fighters and even Jinnah were saying before the idea of Pakistan emerged.

With all due respect Stealth, it is your perogative to find any relevant information and relate it to the discussion.

India, as created by the British, was seen as a single nation by the enlightened lot, at that time.

A section of the political elite yes - but not all. You have to remember that there was one common enemy and occupier of all the nations and peoples of the subcontinent, the British, and many went along because the supreme goal of ending occupation was being served.

The ideology of Pakistan. Iqbal and all that.

Vs the ideology presented for a united India? I still don't understand your question.

Let me remind you that even today, the "Pakistani" identity of a large number of Pakistanis is quite weak. Same can be said about India.

Perhaps - especially as prosperity remains elusive, but each successive generation is more secure in its identity, and Pakistan's Islamic nature ( I would prefer secular) has inadvertently strengthened its identity, or rather the process of cementing its identity, as distinct and separate from India.

Even Pakistan was formed by clubbing together princely states and whatnot. The people had little say in the matter. Did they vote on it?

Referendum in NWFP, referendum and consultative process with Sardars in Baluchistan, Sindh Assembly voted to join Pakistan, and Punjab and Bengal voted the Muslim League to power in a landslide in the elections of 1946.

So yes - the people comprising the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh did indeed decide that they shared neither social consciousness nor nationhood with the upcoming Indian State, and chose to become part of a Pakistani State.

That's besides the point. They could have named it something else...who knows?

Along the same lines, if the Mughals never invaded India, history would have been quite different. All this is speculation.

My point is that your attempt to use a British administrative unit (British India) as validation for the idea of a "United India" is flawed, since the British cared nothing for the fact that all these peoples had existed for thousands of years as divided Kingdoms.

It was a contiguous geographic area, and the British simply combined it into one unit for administrative purposes - if they had controlled Afghanistan, that too would have been included into British India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear AM

Pakistanies were Different from India .In what way ? Religion ? so Ideology of Pakistan is a secessionist ideology which broke a group of people based on only religion .
Now trying to equate this differentiation with differentiation between Indian and Zulus or with French is irrelevant .
We were one civilization, we follow one culture and we are from one linguistic group .
how long will you deny the truth ???

It doesn't matter to me whether the people of India and Pakistan are similar. We share neither a common social consciousness nor nationhood, and did not share them in 1947 either.

There is no question of Pakistan being "secessionist" since there was no country to secede from. India in fact came into existence as a nation a day after Pakistan.

The people of Pakistan chose to form a nation in 1947 out of the hodgepodge of nations and territory conquered by the British and amalgamated into a single colony for administrative purposes - that is the extent of the myth of "one India" no matter how much you distort and manipulate history to try create a historical case in favor of your argument. India was always merely a "region" like the Orient.

at least dabong is honest .. see his post on Re: Banned Kashmiri militant outfits re-emerging in Pakistan but as you say lets push it below the carpet

And Dabong and I are at least more honest than you, who blindly refuses to acknowledge the faults and hatred within his own country.

 

[Flintlock]

My point is that your attempt to use a British administrative unit (British India) as validation for the idea of a "United India" is flawed, since the British cared nothing for the fact that all these peoples had existed for thousands of years as divided Kingdoms.

It was a contiguous geographic area, and the British simply combined it into one unit for administrative purposes - if they had controlled Afghanistan, that too would have been included into British India.

I'll focus on this para for now.

Isn't your point valid for all empires? Did the Mughals, the Afghans, the Kushans or Huns or whoever care about the political divisions before their arrival?
Even they forged large kingdoms from tiny fiefdoms mostly.

So why is the unification of India under the British being treated so differently?
Why is British India suddenly an artificial administrative union, whereas the Islamic empire for example, a great unifier?

I'd say that the British empire was one of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor which led to the formation of India and Pakistan.
The railway, the formation of institutions, the Congress, and the British educated secular elite were the platform on which diverse people from across the subcontinent met and exchanged views.

Though some may disagree, I really don't see how India or Pakistan could have possibly existed as they are today, without the inheritance of the empire.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'll focus on this para for now.

Isn't your point valid for all empires? Did the Mughals, the Afghans, the Kushans or Huns or whoever care about the political divisions before their arrival?
Even they forged large kingdoms from tiny fiefdoms mostly.

So why is the unification of India under the British being treated so differently?
Why is British India suddenly an artificial administrative union, whereas the Islamic empire for example, a great unifier?

I'd say that the British empire was one of the biggest factors, if not the biggest factor which led to the formation of India and Pakistan.
The railway, the formation of institutions, the Congress, and the British educated secular elite were the platform on which diverse people from across the subcontinent met and exchanged views.

Though some may disagree, I really don't see how India or Pakistan could have possibly existed as they are today, without the inheritance of the empire.

Stealth - I wouldn't argue that the Islamic empires in the subcontinent were a "great unifier". They were, like most of the other ruling entities in South Asia, despots who had a hunger for conquering more territory.

The lands comprising today's Pakistan were also once part of the Durrani empire of Afghanistan. So does that lend any more credence to "one Afghanistan"? I would argue not.

Empire's ebb and flow, gain and lose territory. The subcontinent had many, simultaneously. The decision to construct India and Pakistan was a decision made by the political elite at the time, and in teh case of Pakistan at least, got the approval of a majority of its future citizens. There is nothing segregationist or secessionist here - it was merely a restructuring and in fact unification of a diverse set of peoples into two large entities.

Those empires no more provide a basis for "one India" than the British occupation.

 

[Malang]

It doesn't matter to me whether the people of India and Pakistan are similar. We share neither a common social consciousness nor nationhood, and did not share them in 1947 either.

I think in the 90 years that the British rule was established had made sure that all bonds of unity would be shattered by their policies.
It was upto people of common origins to bury their differences or not. Religions never mean to divide their followers do.

There is no question of Pakistan being "secessionist" since there was no country to secede from. India in fact came into existence as a nation a day after Pakistan.

Technicalities do not define ideologies. Pakistan in fact could have been any province of India the criteria was having Muslim majority districts. If such was not the case Pakistan would've never come into existence.

The people of Pakistan chose to form a nation in 1947 out of the hodgepodge of nations and territory

The Muslims of India chose to partition the region of India to form a nation for themselves to protect their elitist tag based on religious loyalty.

conquered by the British and amalgamated into a single colony for administrative purposes - that is the extent of the myth of "one India" no matter how much you distort and manipulate history to try create a historical case in favor of your argument. India was always merely a "region" like the Orient.

Nationalism and Nation as per textbook definitions vary from ground realities.
If you had happened to chance upon Indian history and beliefs you would have realized that this nation has always existed and people have total belief in India as one nation. This as much as explainable or rational as an entity like God revealing knowledge to an Arab also called Prophet Muhammad. It all boils down to belief, this is not a quantitatively definable concept, it is qualitative.
It will always have its detractors and those who believe in it. By saying it doesn't exist is as hurtful as abusing prophets of other religions.

 

[Malang]

British India was nothing more than several States and peoples conquered one by one and put into a single colony for administrative purposes.

Not really British India was the Mughal India, Mauryan India etc. The Indika of Greeks, Hindustan of Mughals, Hind of Persians/Arabs, Aryavarta of Buddhists and Jains... Historically this land bounded by the Mountains in the north and by the sea on the south where the great rivers flow was and is called India..


In any case whether you believe India to be a collection of nations, I believe India to be a collection of provinces where people are united on similarity of their beliefs, ideals, culture and history.

PS: The same way Pakistan's binding chord is the singular Islam, India is bound by multiple chords.

Just because the British combined the region into one for administrative purposes does not then somehow justify the argument that India was "one nation".

How do you define a nation? better how do you define nationalism?
How can you define that China or Iran or Russia is one nation then? They were all adminstrative units of their Kings or rulers.

AM, There is no doubt in the minds of people that if Muslims were not in the subcontinent, Pakistan or Bangladesh wouldn't have been created? So your justification that India is not a nation and Pakistan is, bears no weight.
If Muslims were given the state of Rajasthan they would've accepted it...

This is about secondary justification of the partition but fundamentally one must argue on ideology not convoluted secondary justifications.

Then by your logic Balochistan is a different nation from Punjab which is different from Sindh which is different from NWFP which is different from Kashmir. Pakistan is just one administrative unit lumped together where Muslims of Indian origin voted to get a nation because of religious loyalty and and whose borders were arbitrarily decided by the British. Their nationalism stems from Islam, an organised religion of Arabic origins. Pakistanis share no commonality to a large degree with other people.

"India is as much a nation as the equator". Ring a bell? Even the British realized that all they had was a hodge podge of different peoples and nations under one administrative umbrella.

Winston Churchill also made other comments,
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."
* Letter to Leo Amery, Secretary of State for India, as quoted in "Jolly Good Fellows and Their Nasty Ways" by Vinay Lal in Times of India (15 January 2007)

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual ******* may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
The River War, volume II pp. 248–50 (1899)

It was all part of divide and rule policy and some are still prey to it. One must bow to the diabolical British mind.

It was the Indian political elite that started thinking about a "United nation", out of that British administrative unit, and this myth of a united India has been in the making ever since.

Actually it was the muslim elite which thought of a land for Indian muslims.
Gandhi's followers were largely not elite neither was Gandhi an elitist nor were revolutionaries elitist nor were there supporters.

Many Indians thought of this collection of nations aka India to be a single nation also their motherland and fought for it, nationalism is unfathomable mostly and to say that this nation existed or not is not the question.

(PS: If you happen to read Buddhist, Jain, Hindu or Sikh historical texts, they quite clearly mention various places located within the country of India.)

A section of the political elite yes - but not all. You have to remember that there was one common enemy and occupier of all the nations and peoples of the subcontinent, the British, and many went along because the supreme goal of ending occupation was being served.

all the nations? I think you are interchanging province with nation...
Pakistan, India, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, Nepal, Sri Lanka etc. are all then a collection of nations...

Perhaps - especially as prosperity remains elusive, but each successive generation is more secure in its identity, and Pakistan's Islamic nature ( I would prefer secular) has inadvertently strengthened its identity, or rather the process of cementing its identity, as distinct and separate from India.

Pakistan's identity of today is diametrically opposite to the ideology of Tehreek-e-Pakistan.
Pakistan was to be a homeland of Indian Muslims, today Pakistanis think of themselves as a different people. Pakistan was to be a secular country, today Pakistan is an Islamic republic. etc.

Referendum in NWFP, referendum and consultative process with Sardars in Baluchistan, Sindh Assembly voted to join Pakistan, and Punjab and Bengal voted the Muslim League to power in a landslide in the elections of 1946.
So yes - the people comprising the nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh did indeed decide that they shared neither social consciousness nor nationhood with the upcoming Indian State, and chose to become part of a Pakistani State.

Lets put this way the Muslims who voted for the Muslim League felt a greater sense of loyalty to their religion and to protect their elitist tag. The idea of Hindus ruling the ruling class was unthinkable it was a massive blow to their ego.

Muslims of these provinces did not identify with a lump of land on either side of India to be distinct from India but it was supremacy of religious loyalty.

AM it is tough to convince a person who believes in a concept right down to his very bones but Pakistan was not created because Pakistan as a land was distinct from India or that Jinnah felt that India was not a nation.

My point is that your attempt to use a British administrative unit (British India) as validation for the idea of a "United India" is flawed, since the British cared nothing for the fact that all these peoples had existed for thousands of years as divided Kingdoms.

Divided Kingdoms have existed throughout history, The cultural, social, ethnic etc. of the subcontinent is largely homogenous with some variations but distinct from areas outside the subcontinent. Indians have always identified India as their motherland.

Even Italy was always a divided nation only recently unified so was Germany.
Britain was a divided nation, France was a divided nation etc.

It was a contiguous geographic area, and the British simply combined it into one unit for administrative purposes - if they had controlled Afghanistan, that too would have been included into British India.

They controlled Burma too.. why wasn't that included in India? why didn't anyone shed tears when it was separated?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think in the 90 years that the British rule was established had made sure that all bonds of unity would be shattered by their policies.
It was upto people of common origins to bury their differences or not. Religions never mean to divide their followers do.

All humans have a common origin - yet we form separate nation states - on the basis of ideology, Tribe, civilization, faith, ethnicity or what have you. It was the choice of the people of Pakistan to form their nation on the basis of what they considered shared values based upon shared faith and culture.

That really was the crux of the discussion earlier - that any nation is divisive, the rationale is merely different.

Technicalities do not define ideologies. Pakistan in fact could have been any province of India the criteria was having Muslim majority districts. If such was not the case Pakistan would've never come into existence.

And the subcontinent could also have merely been dozens of provinces in a British Empire. If such were the case, neither India nor Pakistan would have come into existence.

The Muslims of India chose to partition the region of India to form a nation for themselves to protect their elitist tag based on religious loyalty.

The peoples comprising Pakistan had every right to unite to form a nation that they thought best served their interests, where they would be treated fairly and equitably.

Your tag of "elitist" fits just as badly as Hillary's attempt with Obama - a complete distortion of the facts.

Nationalism and Nation as per textbook definitions vary from ground realities.
If you had happened to chance upon Indian history and beliefs you would have realized that this nation has always existed and people have total belief in India as one nation. This as much as explainable or rational as an entity like God revealing knowledge to an Arab also called Prophet Muhammad. It all boils down to belief, this is not a quantitatively definable concept, it is qualitative.
It will always have its detractors and those who believe in it. By saying it doesn't exist is as hurtful as abusing prophets of other religions.

I have in fact started a new thread on the Hindu revisionism in Indian textbooks.

Stating a myth in a textbook does not make it fact. There is no empirical evidence that there was ever any entity of "one India" - therefore there is no question of Pakistan being segregationist or secessionist.

Today's India and Pakistan are the unification of various peoples into two large political entities.They are both a sort of EU of their peoples in fact.

 

[salman nedian]

By your logic:
if Balochis want to seperate why is there a problem?? Balochistan is a distinct nation from Pakistan...
Baloch culture, languge, genetics, terrain etc. all are different from say Punjabis...

Unfortunately for you that majority of Baloch people don’t want to separate. Muslims of India too didn’t want to separate but they were forced to do so by not giving their proper representation.The mentality to take revenge of 1000 years slavery had forced them to gain independence.

If you have visited different forums over the internet you must have seen many Indians using vulgar language against Muslims and they are not few.

 

[Vinod2070]

I think Bangladeshis can better answer about that so called genocide in East Pakistan as we can see even at this forum that they are denying this. It was a propaganda used by India to attack East Pakistan.

By the way were you with Niazi at that time when he asked that question?

You are right. Bangladeshis will be the right source for this information.

Why don't you check what is taught in their school books? Do they commemorate the liberation day? Do they as a nation believe that the 1971 events took place?

The few alleged "Bangladeshi" posters on this forum prove nothing. Most of them are fake ones.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Malang:

First off - I have not argued that Pakistan is a nation while India is not. I have argued that there was no such thing as a "One India nation" prior to 1947.

Not really British India was the Mughal India, Mauryan India etc. The Indika of Greeks, Hindustan of Mughals, Hind of Persians/Arabs, Aryavarta of Buddhists and Jains... Historically this land bounded by the Mountains in the north and by the sea on the south where the great rivers flow was and is called India..

All descriptive names given by historians to a region. Nothing that validates a single nation. The Roman, Greek, Mongol and Islamic empires stretched far as well - but that cannot be used as justification for "one nation" constituting the lands that one comprised those empires, unless the people of those lands agree to such unions.

In any case whether you believe India to be a collection of nations, I believe India to be a collection of provinces where people are united on similarity of their beliefs, ideals, culture and history.

Provinces do not have their own kings emperors and Armies that go to war with each other to destroy the other and expand an empire. The British created adminsitrative units and sub-units just like teh Greeks did. Neither of the two empires is justification of any single nation on the lands they encompassed.

PS: The same way Pakistan's binding chord is the singular Islam, India is bound by multiple chords.

Certainly - post 1947 India that is.

How do you define a nation? better how do you define nationalism?
How can you define that China or Iran or Russia is one nation then? They were all adminstrative units of their Kings or rulers.

That is the logic you are using to justify "one historical India". I am arguing that Pakistan and India were created out of the union of many peoples, combined into two large entities. Empire or colonial administrative units do not define "one nation" in my book - they merely constitute the occupation and subjugation of a people through force.

AM, There is no doubt in the minds of people that if Muslims were not in the subcontinent, Pakistan or Bangladesh wouldn't have been created? So your justification that India is not a nation and Pakistan is, bears no weight.
If Muslims were given the state of Rajasthan they would've accepted it...

This is about secondary justification of the partition but fundamentally one must argue on ideology not convoluted secondary justifications.

Rubbish - if there were no Muslims in the sub-continent then who knows what shape history would have taken. What if there were no Hindus in the subcontinent? You cannot merely remove one enormous chain of events from history and come to whatever fanciful conclusion fits your whims.

Cultures and people evolve - there is nothing unnatural about it, it is how the world works, and in the subcontinent this led to its own set of events.

And I clarified at the beginning that my reference to the non-existence of an Indian nation only refers to the subcontinent pre 1947.

Then by your logic Balochistan is a different nation from Punjab which is different from Sindh which is different from NWFP which is different from Kashmir. Pakistan is just one administrative unit lumped together where Muslims of Indian origin voted to get a nation because of religious loyalty and and whose borders were arbitrarily decided by the British. Their nationalism stems from Islam, an organised religion of Arabic origins. Pakistanis share no commonality to a large degree with other people.

The provinces of Pakistan represent different peoples - when they chose to join Pakistan they became part of one nation.

Actually it was the muslim elite which thought of a land for Indian muslims.
Gandhi's followers were largely not elite neither was Gandhi an elitist nor were revolutionaries elitist nor were there supporters.

Many Indians thought of this collection of nations aka India to be a single nation also their motherland and fought for it, nationalism is unfathomable mostly and to say that this nation existed or not is not the question.

(PS: If you happen to read Buddhist, Jain, Hindu or Sikh historical texts, they quite clearly mention various places located within the country of India.)

I have discussed a few quotes posted by Samudra elsewhere - they constitute nothing more than pandering to a ruling elite and providing divine justification for conquest and enlargement of empire to me.

Muslim philosophers and thinkers also postulate Ummah and a pan-Islamic State on similar grounds - both ideas are flawed, so long as the people of the nations concerned do not agree.

Pakistan's identity of today is diametrically opposite to the ideology of Tehreek-e-Pakistan.
Pakistan was to be a homeland of Indian Muslims, today Pakistanis think of themselves as a different people. Pakistan was to be a secular country, today Pakistan is an Islamic republic. etc.

Pakistan is what Pakistanis make it. While I would liek to see it secular, Islam has a strong role in peoples lives, and the country shall remain an Islamic republic (though not a theocracy) for the medium to long term, though I see a positive trend in attitudes and reformation of laws towards being less discriminatory.

Lets put this way the Muslims who voted for the Muslim League felt a greater sense of loyalty to their religion and to protect their elitist tag. The idea of Hindus ruling the ruling class was unthinkable it was a massive blow to their ego.

Muslims of these provinces did not identify with a lump of land on either side of India to be distinct from India but it was supremacy of religious loyalty.

AM it is tough to convince a person who believes in a concept right down to his very bones but Pakistan was not created because Pakistan as a land was distinct from India or that Jinnah felt that India was not a nation.

Rubbish again, so now any community that acts to protect its interests is "elitist" and "egoist". The elitists I see are the ones who come up with fantastical arguments in support of a mythical "one nation" to justify expansionist ideas and land grabbing.

Divided Kingdoms have existed throughout history, The cultural, social, ethnic etc. of the subcontinent is largely homogenous with some variations but distinct from areas outside the subcontinent. Indians have always identified India as their motherland.

Even Italy was always a divided nation only recently unified so was Germany.
Britain was a divided nation, France was a divided nation etc.

I would actually look at France, Italy, Germany etc. representing the nations that comprised the subcontinent. The Punjabis, Pashtun, Baluchi, Sindhi, Tamils and Bengalis represent the European States. And these people united to form two large entities of India and Pakistan.

They controlled Burma too.. why wasn't that included in India? why didn't anyone shed tears when it was separated?

Ask them.

Logic here was making a case earlier of an Indian nation stretching to Indonesia, so he may definitely have shed some tears.