An argument based on "for me India is always a nation" is no argument at all. You might as well say you live on Mars.
Since there is no empirical evidence for a "one India" (pre 1947), the only issue that remains is, as you said, nationalism on the basis of various commonalities and similarities amongst various peoples, as a union or individually. In the case of the people who chose Pakistan, that nationalism arose based on faith, cultural similarities and common interests that they felt would be safeguarded by creating a nation called Pakistan.
Nation, Nationalism are philosophical concepts which arose in the last couple of centuries, Nationalism means bonds between people who may or mayn't be in contact.
For Pakistan as I said bond is Religion, for Pakistanis Pakistan could be anywhere.
For an Indian the bond is land and culture, they can follow any religion.
You have no empirical proof for a concept that arose recently, and as per your empirical findings you will notice no nation as such existed.
The political elite of congress and Gandhi had their chance to try and convince the diverse peoples inhabiting the subcontinent to unite to form one single union - it was an argument that failed, and rightly so.
Congress Political Elite and Gandhi were two different entities and their argument failed because of misinterpretation of religion. This may be justifiable to you but not to me. For me God never sent a religion as pious as Islam to divide people or create hate.
Everything happens because of a cause.
Nationalism can find its basis in many things. The religious change in the subcontinent was part of the evolution of human society and culture that occurs everywhere. I fail to see why you you attribute any import to this - its pat of life.
Nationalism needs strong chords, and what better chord than hate?
When you hate someone you think of them 24*7 and when you love you don't? How many people spend their lives in taking revenge and how many spend their lives in spreading love?
& this is exactly what has happened in Pakistan, the nation unites when India and Kashmir is brought in.
Cultures almost everywhere assimilate and share traits and absorb foreign influences - that is hardly a unique phenomenon.
Indian culture and practices can be traced back to several milleniums and at the same time many foreign influences and modernity to have shaped some practices. I have not seen such a phenomenon elsewhere. The description of some Indian cities mentioned in historical books can still be observed in the present.
One could argue that Western Culture is, bar some minor differences, identical, and countries in the West retain strong racial homogeneity as well. Yet nationalism within those nations remains extremely strong. I would put them in the same category as the Europeans, Canadians and Americans - there is racial homogeneity, strong similarities in culture and language - yet the individual nationalism of each nation is strong and vibrant.
Europeans, Canadians and Americans are all different IMO.
A better racial homogenity would be exhibited amongst Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand etc. and all owe their allegiance to the crown. God Save the Queen?
It depends upon the peoples involved. Every situation has different dynamics and undercurrents. The people of Pakistan had three main issues - faith, similar cultures and safeguarding their common interests.
If you refer to my posts in previous couple of pages I have mentioned what were the reasons mentioned for creating Pakistan...
My main issue is
1. Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood, dividing is antithetical
2. Similar culture: the same culture is still visible in India
3. Safeguarding common interests: possibly but then such options should have been made available to all..
This arbitrary decision to grant a piece of land to Muslims was undemocratic and insecular.
Everyone identifies themselves on different levels. One can be a Christian, an American and a Hispanic all at the same time. Depending upon what the context is, you could relate to events as a Christian, as an American or as a Hispanic. Perhaps his context was that of Muslims in South Asia.
Now I personally believe most Pakistanis beleive themselves to be of outside Subcontinent descent.... Ishtiaq Ahmed mentioned in one of his editorials that at one point of time the Arayyans called themselves Rajputs and now call themsleves Arabs...
Mere opinions don't count, nor does mere "faith".
I have as of yet seen nothing but extremely tenuous arguments for a "one India", which seemed mostly contrived as the citizens of the contemporary Indian political entity try and ground themselves in some sort of historical nationhood to justify and solidify (unnecessarily) their modern nationhood.
I believe a strong part of this revisionism comes from dynamics similar to those in political Islam that argue for a untied Ummah and pan-Islamic State - its just couched in terms of "civilizational commonalities", as well as a strong animosity towards Pakistan.
AM, evolution in human behaviour have made kingdoms irrelevant, regionalism irrelevant and now divisiveness to is becoming irrelevant.. time is of consolidation but the interests and binding chords should be strong...
for eg. Muslim Ummah may be possible but only if enforced in totality..
Arabs still think themselves to be superior, Persians too etc. this attitude is detrimental..
Europeans are uniting because of interests and strong cultural binding chords...
PS :In any case please if you have the time go through some of my previous posts.. and find faults in them.