Originally Posted by Norymberskie

I am assuming when these things were being decided, there was sufficient representation of the Muslims in the decision making process.

Is it possible that there were Hindu majority cities which are now part of Pakistan?(Are you sure there aren't any?)

I am sure the question came up at the time of partition and there was adequate discussion on it. It is also possible that they thought it was not a big deal for the Muslims in Ferozpur to move to pakistan as the distance to the border is only 10km. Hence, they concentrated their efforts on more pressing matters.

There is another way to think about it. For the English, it was simply a question of what was to be 'taken' by the Muslims and what 'remained' in India. Pakistan was the new country so to say, not India. Pakistan was to be carved out of India and for something to be a part of Pakistan, there had to be overwhelming support for that. If there wasn't, the region did not 'go' to India but 'remained' a part of it. It is possible that the Indians themselves put forward the argument that since the people of Ferozpur are so close to the potential boundary, why don't they simply move? Pakistan could well have used the same argument to get cities in Sindh where I am sure there were more Hindu majority regions(most of the Hindus in Pakistan today reside in Sindh)

I fail to understand why people blame the British of doing things deliberately. If they wanted people in the region to fight, they would have simple left and let the people fight it out. If they had done that, we might well have had separate countries for the Sikhs too and much more bloodshed. I also fail to see how Pakistan would have come into being in that scenario as most of the tools of the State were in India's control and they would have crushed the Muslims using State power.