Excellent analysis.
Always note however - point of information - that it wasn't "India" the nation state that was partitioned. It was the British owned colony of India. I know we all fully understand it to be this anyway, however, Indians internationally project a false narrative of some sort of absolute hindu control over the subcontinent emanating from Delhi prior to partition, which is patently false as we know, but serves as vital propaganda for their false narratives over who controlled what before 1947.
Re: your main thrust - the perverse matter is that these western liberals align with hindutva fanatics on this issue without even realising it.
The western liberals - erroneously and over-simplistically - believe that "partition messed the subcontinent up and it was peaceful when unified".
Hindutva also wanted a single republic of India to be born, to exert control over Islamic heritage and legacy throughout the subcontinent. They have itched to erase our monuments, heritage sites, institutions (e.g. waqf) since Golwalkar's days. Essentially, hindutva wishes us to be dalitised. When one observes the types of subcontinental muslim being bred by hindutva, it is evident that they want us to appear like defanged and subservient imbeciles who somehow need the stewardship of the brahminic classes to simply survive and be happily confined to our madrassas.
t.me
