Putting it simply, I do not agree. Nor are the constitutional experiments of over sixty years, from the 1880s to 1947, to be dismissed so easily. There were deep and abiding reasons why separate electorates were sought; it is necessary to be thoroughly abreast of the British attempts at providing representative government without swamping a minority to understand why these were necessary.
This thread has quite mistakenly meandered away into partition, the necessity for the creation of Pakistan and the Indian belief that this was never necessary.
Sadly, the original intention of the author, to point out that Pakistanis need not feel orphaned merely because the name of their constituted state has changed and that of another part of the older state has remained what it was, seems to have got lost in all this mutual misgiving. Pakistanis cannot lose their identity, nor can they lose their cultural heritage, the heritage of the several great civilisations that flourished in the geographical areas not identified with them, merely because of a political change of name. That does not amount to a change of identity. On the contrary, they carry their heritage with them, each man, woman or child, in Pakistan or out of it, and they need not apologise to each other or to others of any affiliation about being heirs to this rich heritage.
