Of all the many reasons for the creation of Pakistan, opposition to land reform is likely not a major one: Pakistan and India came into existence at the same time, and few would have predicted the directions each took. Pakistan at origin was simply the Muslim-majority regions of British India, minus Jammu and Kashmir, plus, for a brief moment in time, Junagadh, an overwhelmingly Hindu princely state whose Nawab decided to accede to Pakistan. The current official map of Pakistan still shows it in green. Just goes to show how little logic is used in the India-Pakistan debate…and how unwilling each side is to allow local populations to declare independence.

It so happens that as soon as Jinnah died, the people of Pakistan discovered that their country was defined by a negative sign: it is the not-India, the alternative state defined by the religion of its residents. It was ruled by its small military clique, and that group rapidly got down to the business of milking the state. In that sense, if no other, Pakistan is probably the rightful heir to the mahrajas who ruled all of the princely states with such studied disdain for the well-being of their subjects.

Also, I have heard people say that a large motivation for the creation of Pakistan was India’s aggressive land reform plans. Large landowners in what is now Pakistan wanted to hold onto their land holdings. Would be interested to hear other people’s opinions on the truth of this.