AOA, a very senior member of the forum told me following lines. I have studied 14 Years till BSc about Two-Nation Theory and Hindu-Muslim matters in the text books but never came to know such things. Now after reading the following lines i am totally confused. Please help me.

Q No. 1 Is the following analysis Right?
Q No. 2 If not Right, then what is truth?
Q No. 3 If the following lines are generally accepted, should such lines be written in CSS-Paper??????????? Or otherwise??????

Lets dig into the origins of anti-India rhetoric. The society that formed in the territory of Pakistan at the time of independence was diverse and socially and economically backward and political anti-India rhetoric was not so deeply rooted and widespread as number 1 priority in it; except for in migrant populations probably, local population was largely indifferent to India. This fact is evident till today, you will not find too deep anti-Hindu or anti-India sentiment except for maybe in those people whose 'siasi dukandari' is based upon that . There had never been significant cases of severe political rioting between Hindus and local Muslims in this territory, neither there had been significant political protest against India and British on injustices in Redcliffe awards. Rather Chief Minister of Sindh Ayoub Khuhro opposed and protested forceful persecution of Hindus in Sindh. Therefore we can safely assume that what the local people politically aspired of independence was a 'progressive and welfare Muslim state' which would free them of slavery of Hindu or British dominance, bring freedom and progress into their lives. However same was not the case with political leadership of Muslim League and the state that established here; they had fair amount of hostility towards India and Hindus in their minds. Soon after inception, political power of Muslim League begun to loose ground and after early death of Quaid and assasination of Liaqat Ali Khan, local political forces were fastly replacing the political leadership role of Muslim League in both East and West Pakistan; however this didn't go well with the State's establishment of that time and they wanted the Muslim League to remain in role of political leadership. Local political forces were not so unified and powerful, so the state attempted to suppress them in order to keep their political ambitions on top. On the other side of the border in India, the political situation was largely the same. Society there was diverse and large segments of it basically wanted improvements in their lives and they were politically indifferent towards Pakistan just like political anti-India rhetoric was limited in Pakistani society. But the difference between Indian and Pakistani establishments and political leadership was that Indian leadership gave in to what people wanted and did not pursue their anti-Pakistan political discourses, but Pakistani establishment and political leadership didn't.

Now this shouldn't be understood literally, ideally and generally as there was no any anti-India sentiment in Pakistani nation or there was no any anti-Pakistan sentiment in Indian nation; it was politically and religiously present in some political elements (like in Congress at the time of independence and probably even the state establishment, and later-on shifted into BJP via its allies, the right wing Hindu religious political groups) but it was not the priority of people. Those elements are the ones that raise 'Akhand Bharat' and these kinds of slogans in India. Yaheen pe aksar log ghalti kar jaate hain, un ko samjhane kee koshish karo to woh cheezon ko literally dekhte hain aur foran jazbaati ho jaate hain . The thing to note is unlike the state establishments and political leaderships at the time of independence, aggression was not the priority of people. The political discourse that Pakistani establishment and political leadership took was to vehemently pursue their aggressive and militant anti-India policies regardless of the fact that was not the priority of majority of the people, thus going against national political priorities; and the discourse that Indian establishment and political leadership took was to give in to popular political demands, improve the condition of people first, elevate the status of nation and we can deal with Pakistan later once India becomes a major global/regional power. That is why Pakistani establishment was always sympathetic to anti-India slogans and always intervened to keep Muslim League or anti-India forces in political power (every General had gathered different right wing anti-India political forces under the banner of Muslim League ), whereas Indian establishment remained indifferent to whoever gets the political power and followed policies that were handed over to it by political forces.

Sirif yeh aik cheez samajh jayen, aap ko Pakistan kee political history kee haqiqat jo hamain parhai gayi hai aur jo haqiqat main hua hai us main differentiate karna aasan ho jaaye gaa . apna political objective nation pe zabardasti enforce karne kaa discourse ghalat tha yaa sahi, the judgement would be solely your own . Akhand Bharat ke slogan ko Bharat main shayad itni popularity haasil nahin hai jitna us ko yahan propaganda purposes ke liye use kia gaya .