Patriotism is a bourgeois concept to keep the masses in check with the idea that the nations that they create at whim to secure their own capital and suppress revolution was done to mark their clay and maintain prosperity. Religion, ethnicity, language, creed, all can be used to divide and conquer a land and then subsequently placing in the minds of the conquered that it is their duty to support "their" land. Thus is the case for Pakistani and Indian patriotism, both nations created spontaneously after attempts at revolution by Indian workers (1946) had made the British and national bourgeois worried. Those who have created these nations - the national bourgeois and their colonial lords - were the same ones who had before scoffed at the idea of partition.
>Such was his passion for Partition that in August 1946 he vowed: “We shall have India divided or we shall have India destroyed”. Jinnah made a complete u-turn, however: at an “oyster dinner” held in 1933 by Cambridge student Rahmat Ali at London’s rather non-Islamic Waldorf Hotel to propose a country called Pakistan for Muslims, he laughed at the idea. This idea was later described by Muslim leaders, including Jinnah, to the Joint Select Committee of the British parliament as “only a student’s scheme chimerical and impractical”. Before 1940, Muslim hardliners were still dismissing the idea of a separate nation for the Muslims as absurd. (Lal Khan)
>But when I met Gandhiji again, I had the greatest shock of my life to find that he had changed. He was still not openly in favour of Partition but he no longer spoke so vehemently against it. What surprised and shocked me even more was that he began to repeat the arguments which Sardar Patel had already used. For over two hours I pleaded with him, but could make no impression on him. (Abul Kalam Azad)
>I was surprised when Patel said whether we liked it or not, there were two nations in India. He was now convinced that Muslims and Hindus could not be united into one nation. It was better to have one clean fight and then separate than have bickering everyday. I was surprised that Patel was now an even greater supporter of the two-nation theory than Jinnah. Jinnah may have raised the flag of Partition but now the real flag bearer was Patel. (Abul Kalam Azad)
>Jawaharlal was not first ready for the idea and reacted violently against the idea of Partition. Lord Mountbatten persisted till Jawaharlal’s opposition was worn down step by step. Within a month of Mountbatten’s arrival in India, Jawaharlal, the firm opponent of Partition had become, if not a supporter at least acquiescent to the idea. (Abul Kalam Azad)
A truly united world is a world unexploited. Capitalism and subsequently neoliberalism doesn't wish for a united world for a united world would make the exploitation done to the ""third-world"" (the characterization of it as a separate 'world' also displays the inbuilt divisions made by neoliberal globalization) ever so transparent. Divide, anglicize and conquer was the real mantra of the British, for the anglicization of the bourgeois allowed for easy exploitation of the new nations. Look at Pakistan and India today, both nations have most of their laws derived from the previous British system. The punishments for homosexuality and adultery in Pakistan were purely derived from the Victorian system put in place long ago!