Sorry but its easier for me to reply to each point in a long post this way.
1. that is why i said i dont believe in the two nation theory 100%, because it assumes that muslims and hindu cannot co-exist, too negative a footing
but also maybe the times called for that thinking back then. the argument made by jinnah for two nations was petty compelling at the time, it no doubt it resonated with enough people (including influential british strategists).
in that sense pakistan felt very valid and real.....but one thing for sure was that pakistan did not have the independence to make its lofty visions come true, hence over time you have had a cacophony of interests asserting their own narrative (saudi wahabi's, feudals, americans...) thus undermining and eventually subverting the will of the people!
2. look at iran, it both has claims over its pre and post islamic history, no major problem.
the major failure pakistani's need to correct is the negligence/suppression of their ancient history, this is a challenge for sure but using iran as a kind of example its clearly not impossible!
3. the contradictions in the narrative are a mistake to me it seems, it leads to a reductionist historical view, which is never healthy.
i dont think such a change would totally undermine the creation of pakistan, just that it would require people to update their historcal views to be inclusive of a broader historical view......some indians may naturally regard this as weakness but i dont interpret having a pre islamic history as necessarily weak, its just that we are now in an era where it makes less sense to suppress the past.
