They could be, but the point is they weren't afraid/concerned of that scenario back in 40s.
The mere fact of Pakistan's creation means it had the support of those people.
What is land without the people, two are so intertwined that is is not possible to separate them.
I know that India has strong regionalism, so that may affect your perception. Personally, I have lived too long in large, cosmopolitan cities to believe in this kind of regionalism. In Karachi, for example, there is no feeling of any one ethnicity being dominant. Even in Mumbai, I get the feeling Maharashtra identity is strong, yet such is not the case with Karachi and Sindhi identity.
Question is how much are you looking forward, that's the raison d'etre of this thread.
Oh, we know the reason for this thread. It is to 'discuss' the usual favorites: Pakistan's creation, supposed identity crisis, internal divisions, etc, etc.
It was both ethnicity and freedom of religion, Pakistan was never meant for South Indian Muslims.
Were any South Indian state majority Muslim? In any case there is a matter of pragmatism; Jinnah couldn't create a Bantustan republic littered throughout India. As it is, the East-West Pakistan physical divide proved unworkable enough.
It is not about you being Hindus in past but it's about you being Punjabi/Pushtun/Baloch/Sindhi in present and past who have nothing to do with those pesky Indians lurking around Ganjes, let's not even mention those who are in south of Bindha. Look around and see what's going on the forum, or just read posts couple of pages back.
Like India, Pakistan is a diverse country. The people of Punjab and Sindh have cultural affinity with North India, the Pakhtuns have more affinity with Afghanistan, the Baloch with Eastern Iran, etc.
You guys are reading too much into all this.