Was Pakistan created as a Western proxy state as it's enemies claim it to be?

Alot of anti-Pakistani Indian propagandists continuously rant on Pakistan being a western proxy state.
The "proof" they use to back up this rant is Pakistan's current support for the Americans and NATO in Afghanistan. They go even as far as to claim that Pakistan was 'created' for western interests.
Let's examine this accusation that Pakistan is a western proxy.

In case readers do not know, a popular claim amongst Indians is that the entire South Asia belonged to the country today known as the Republic of India (ROI) and that the West saw this country's existence as a threat to their interests and so they "partitioned" "India" to carve and create proxy states that would be friendly to their interests.

This claim is not only a blatant lie, but in fact the opposite of reality. The British actually opposed the idea of Pakistan's provinces not ceding to the ROI.

Before the Eighteenth century AD no one in the subcontinent had ever heard of a place called "India" the name itself was a British import.
Most of the ROI's current day boundaries were drawn up by the British Empire. A lot of the territories within the Indian state are due to the British expansion into those regions and their forceful inclusion into the British Raj which remained under the New Delhi governments control after the foundations of ROI and the departure of the British.

Never were the people of the Bengal region related to "Indians" racially or ever part of a country known as "India" prior to British occupation. Always they maintained a distinct identity with their own arts and history.

Neither were the Mongoloids found in the North Eastern parts of "India" related to their rulers in New Deli, racially, culturally or linguistically.

Neither was Nepal ever a part of "India" despite how Indians falsely claim their history as "Indian" such as Buddha and other important historic figures.

Knowing all this, the Indians in fact should thank the British for carving out their artificially designed state.

So coming to Pakistan, was it a puppet/proxy state carved out by the west? Based on the info given above the answer is simply no. As stated earlier, the British opposed Jinnah (founder of the modern Pakistani state) and his ambitions to prevent Sindh, Punjab, and other provinces of the Indus Valley region from becoming a part of this British proxy state called "India" (remember the British who coined & imported the name, not the government in New Delhi).
The reason behind it was, the British wanted a single state that would take their commands from London instead of having to deal with various countries with differing points of views and political agendas.
And one single proxy state on the map would be a far greater asset than various others coming in the way. If Afghanistan, Pakistan had become a part of "India" there would be fewer problems for the west to access great wealth in Caspian Region and most of Central Asia and the Gulf. They would simply be on "Greater India's" doorstep.
There would be no need to clear out Afghanistan from the irritant Taliban & Al-Queda or have to offer Pakistan billions of dollars in aid and in return for giving them access to the regions of interest.

All this would have been much easier with an order sent to the government in New Delhi.

The book Jinnah, Pakistan and the Islamic identity, there is historic documentation including Jinnah's arguments with British officials for trying to keep their "India" as one country.

The British took serious steps to ensure the Pakistan region remained part of the proxy state of which was drawn by the British themselves. This included offering Jinnah high positions in the Indian government, which he refused.

Even economically speaking, the landmass that the ROI is consisted of has been developed by the British as pointed out by Dr Kaiser Bengali, a Pakistani economist.
The transcript of his lecture on the history of the Pakistani & Indian economies can be found here.

So why then would the British want to support Jinnah's ambitions and the Pakistani state? What interest would that hold? When most of their infrastructure is invested in India? When India has been the west's traditional front line proxy against China.
Pakistan on the other hand has maintained good relations with China and North Korea, two countries that the west sees as a "hostile enemies."

Have people already forgotten the transfer of nuclear technology by Pakistan to North Korea?
Now North Korea threatens America with nuclear technology supplied by Pakistan.

Do the subscribers of Indian propaganda not know Pakistan and North Korea backed Iran during the Iran-Iraq war while the west and the Arab states backed Saddam Hussein's regime?

Some argue that during the Soviet-Afghan war Pakistan was a "western puppet" under Zia Ul-Haq.
This is a very narrow-minded viewpoint derived from blindness and ignorance.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, Pakistan saw the growing expansion of the USSR to it's sovereignty.
The west on the other hand feared Soviet control and access to warm water ports, hence it joined hands with Pakistan to prevent Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

How can a common goal be termed as puppetry? Zia Ul-Haq was certainly a ruthless man in many people's eyes, but he worked with the West along common interests, not because he worshiped them and would take chances for their sake.
In fact Zia Ul-Haq and the Americans had conflicting values, though they supported Islamist fanaticism in Afghanistan to counter Soviet communist propaganda, the Americans and the west do not favor this ideology, knowing how the Islamists despise western policies.

Even during the current-day Afghan war, who else can be better ally to rid itself of Mullahs and Taliban than the west?
The Taliban happen to be a target of both entities.
Anyone who'd think ridding Pakistan off Mullahs is not an interest for the country would be mad.
Supporting the war is beneficial for Pakistan:
1) Military assistance (against the Taliban) will benefit it.
2) It makes getting rid of fanatics much easier by working with NATO.
3) NATO gives economic assistance to Pakistan, to make up for all the losses in an ongoing arms race instigated by ongoing Indian aggression.

But on the long run, Pakistan and the West have differing values and ambitions. This is well known. Pakistan has an ongoing alliance with China, North Korea which the West sees as their potential enemies.
China is not only seen as a political and military rival, but also an economic one.

India wishes to gain control of some territory belonging to China to restore their imaginary "Ancient Bharat" (a country that never existed outside of the imagination of Indians). China is a common enemy of both India and the West.

This is the reason why India enjoys western support. This is why Bush agreed to assist India in civilian nuclear power development, not Pakistan.

This is why the West lifted sanctions on India after it's nuclear tests in 1998 and not Pakistan. The sanctions were lifted much later in 2001 when Pakistan joined NATO in the fight against the Taliban.

India does not pose much of a threat to China militarily, but with Western military & technological assistance they pose a higher threat than they do without it.

Many Indians argue, that without China, Pakistan would be no match for it.
While it is true that India can inflict serious damage on it, Pakistan for a country much smaller than it's arch rival has done a terrific job in defending it's boundaries and this goes back to much before China and Pakistan became allies.

The 1947 war had no Chinese assistance coming to Pakistan. The 1971 war was nothing more than a complete cheat by the Indians. Attacking a country during civil war.

The Pakistani armed forces were stranded over a thousand miles from their base, outnumbered, isolated in a sea of enemies, fighting a civil war.

What if a small pocket of Indian soldiers went to prevent a rebellion in it's islands in South East Asia? What if this small pocket was met by a larger number of Pakistani troops who'd surround them and force them to surrender.
Would not Indians cry it was an unfair fight? So why take pride in such a dishonest fight?

How about Pakistan highlighting on the fact that Indians are so dependent on Western & Israeli weapons technology?

Based on the information provided above (and further information to come) can anyone with reasoning agree on the Indian claim that an independent Pakistan would aid British ambitions?
Already as pointed out the people today known as "Indians" owe much to the British for drawing out the boundaries of their country and inventing their artificial "Indian identity" as well as inventing this thing called "Hinduism" found here.


So why make the Brits the scapegoat? Even when no part of South Asia was ever "India" why accuse someone of dividing what was never there?

If anything the information shown from above attests to the fact that the existence of the ROI and "Hinduism" is a Western/British job.