1. The above theory would hold grounds if there was any country named "india" pre 1947. The present day India was created by allocation of land from British India territory which was a loose collectivity of 400+ princely states annexed by English crown. (Think of this has a large cake English put up among a number of people to divide as they wish)
2. 98% people continued to live on same last post 1947 as Pakistanis where they lived pre 1947 as Indians / Baluchis / Punjabis / etc etc..
3. Given the demographics at the time of partition, India inherited almost all the modern cities, infrastructure and industries while the denomination of Pakistan inherited a major part of agrarian land and peasant population. Given the scenario, approach of development to north-west India subcontinent (present day Pakistan) would have been extremely slow while the southern Indian subcontinent would have enjoyed a rapid growth contributing to two different class of people loosely divided by religion. Any educated leader would be able to foresee the future while the uneducated religious lots will keep chanting their solutions.
4. Religious unity has never been continuous in India and has a violent history. Even Akbar struggled to unite Indians beyond the lines of religion giving rise to the "deen-e-elahi" project which failed miserably and has discredited Akbar standing among the Muslims as a true follower.
5. Muslim pre-1947 were highly motivated to remain untied until the freedom movement started to adopt orange colors.
6. While Muslims may be gaining wealth day and night in India, it has come at a total compromise of their social fabric and structure. Or has kept them buried backwards in extended "socialist" communities. While Pakistan has its share of problem as intolerance and extremism, it has fared very well on the social side of creating and preserving its identity.
A handful of sufis cannot run political show. It has not attracted any followings in Pakistan other than good poetry and music.
no yaar..as per me ur facts are somewhat hindered....... i know pakistanis are taught in their school that india is as old as a country than pakistan. and for this reason all the theories.
frankly, even the greeks, persians used da word 'hindua' millenia back and which comprised of indian sub continent. which actually ment land of hindus. now hindus was da word given because of indus river. it was the religion followed by ppl of indus and beyond...(that time there wasnt islam)...u see hindu isnt actually any word by the locals..... indian religion wasnt ever named as there wasnt any competition. for identity sake indians called 'sanatan' religion by indians themselves.
so if u see unbiased way, india as a culture lasted since IVC. (now u can have ur own logic of calling it ancient PAKISTAN).
now about the partition theory......i dont need to mine..it wud be futile..
but i wud comment on syncreticism...... its been the essence of indian subcontinent.
thats how islam came to india.....syncrticism is what kashmiri ppl believe.....thats why u see mutual harmony between hindus and muslims in kashmir......
thanks to both india and pakistan to screw em for personal gains......
infact for 800 yrs of islamic rule in delhi which was a comparitively small province, islam and hinduism coexisted like a family.......they never knew anything of pakistan will come into picture.
i wud be adamant to say......jinna got scared coz of some orange propaganda......
he was too skeptical of the india coverting to hindu state.
he never understood that anything in this world is possible, but just taking actions on basis of skeptacism dont always pay.....
let me tell u, the orange brigade of india hate pakistan and disown muslims of india just coz they think it was coz of muslims india got divided......some random nationalism tough......
if partition eudnt have happened......no problems whatso ever......no kashmir issue, no river issue, nothin at all !
