Factual errors in this article.
The correct figure is close to 27-28% of British India in 1941. The Author is confusing it for only those parts which became present day India. This will push Hindus close to 65% This makes his entire argument fall apart. A 30% population would have been a substantial caucus.
The author confuses current scenario with a possible alternate scenario. A lot of bad blood in this region is caused by the partition and resulting territorial disputes. In a united country, it is very likely bitterness would have been less.
And that would have been a bad thing? Lets see :
WB (GDP Per Capita, international USD PPP) : INT$6,032
BD (GDP Per Capita, international USD PPP) : INT$5,028
WB Growth rate : 12%
BD Growth rate : 8.5%
Literacy rate WB: 74-77%
Literacy rate BD: 72-73%
Infant mortality rate WB: 25 per 1000
Infant mortality rate BD: 25 per 1000
Life Expectency WB : 69.8 years
Life Expectency BD : 72.2 years
Again, with no partition the scenario would have been totally different.
And?
Would there be a reason for nuclear weapons if the entire region were a country? May be to keep China at bay but even that is a stretch.
Again, the guy is comparing the present scenario with a hypothetical one. The cause for bad blood among the countries and people is land dispute and partition.
The guy is either naive or simply dishonest.