Revives the old questions all over again: (1) Rana has no concrete proof that Muslims who remained chose to do so out of any "idea of India", and can give no contemporary evidence of what that Muslim interpretation of "idea of India" was in 1947.
(2) if overwhelming support for Muslim league with stated Pakistan agenda - proven by voting %age in elections in Muslim reserved constituencies, did not reflect majority Muslim opinion due to majority Muslims ineligible to vote, it means Pakistan is illegitimate on many counts.
(3) Assumption of being prevented from voting due to franchise restrictions on Muslims (just like most Hindus too) is not PROOF that those unable to vote also did not support Pakistan or would have voted against ML. Rare anecdotes allowed to survive/report indicate otherwise.
(4) There are a few verifiable reasons for Muslims staying back though: at first its the elite/rich/resourceful Muslim who emigrated first, because they cd master influence and resources better both in India and Pakistan to make their move smooth and feasible.
(5) Same was true on Hindu side: just like elite Muslims elite Hindus fled first, (with exceptions like one in Noakhali whose head was ceremonially halaaled by jihadi pir's followers and demo'd on plate, and his granddaughters enslaved by scum jihadis)
(6) Common hindu and muslim didnt hv the resources and connections to make the emigration smooth, and at first the poorer of both communities stayed put. They moved only when they were forced out. It doesnt prove their ideological commitments. But there is a catch.
(7) while Pakistan as a state protected its ML/pir/mullah-jihadi networks in pogroms to chase any remnant Hindus and Sikhs out, esp the men, capture the women or convert, Bharat gov didnt do so - in fact viciously intervened to prevent any such pressure on Muslims in India.
(8) In fact there were reportedly initiatives by both political ldrship and orgs on Indian side to try and reassure Muslims staying back, or trying to return from Pak after they were not happy with what they were being offered on the other side.
(9) No such initiatives took place on ground on Pakistan side to reassure Hindus while the jihadi founding daddies of Pak officially pretended (as typical of all jihadis) to reciprocate Indian state sentiment and actions.
(10) another angle explaining Muslims staying back - never highlighted in the hagiography of Islamism in India is the fact of the persistent use of "hostage population" theory by jihadi ldrship of ML/Pakistan.
(11) From very early most of mullah theoreticians of future Pak, propagated the idea of "Hindu/Sikhs" popn to be kept in Pak as "hostage" to ensure full appeasement of Islamism remaining in Bharat. Combined with initial agitprop of keeping most of north India in "Pakistan",
(12) this implied, that until the very last moment, common muslims wd be under hope that they somehow will still belong to a "Pakistan" on Partition, and only when the elite abandoned them they began clinging to "hostage popn" theory (as reported in some contemporary sources).
(13) thus, hope of still being in Pak until last moment, poverty, and comparative Indian tolerance and state intervention to protect and reassure, explains better those Muslims staying back than any imagined then conception of "idea of India" among them or rejection of Pakistan.
