I ain't going to get involved between Edgar and ivaldo, but I did want to add a couple of points.
Before colonisation Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Jews all lived in the same villages, most were related to each other.
Splitting the Punjab and Indian Bangala to make the two Pakistans was specifically to disrupt the two populations from which by far the largest number of freedom fighters came. It wasn't because of higher Muslim populations, if that was the case, Delhi, for example would have been split into parts.
My understanding is the beginning of the "Muslim/Hindu" argument was a newspaper article about saris. But really, what caused the tension was to announce that there would be a split in the two areas, but no announcement of the actual boundary for months, just saying those villages with majority Muslim would be in Pakistan.
As I said earlier, most of the villages in those two areas were heavily mixed and if you were a minority in your village, you were going to lose everything, no question. People got scared and tried to affect the balance of Hindus/Muslims, which eventually led to murders.
Don't forget, a lot of those villagers had already lost loads to the British, in addition to the other abuse that the brits had put them through, like having to crawl instead of walk through certain streets, I'd say a fair number of them had ptsd, so their reaction to possibly losing everything they own was kinda understandable, if not justifiable.
I mean, I've been to Jalewala Bagh, where hundreds of peaceful protesters in a walled garden were fired on by General Dwyer. He blocked the only exit so those people who didn't die from the bullets died by jumping in the well to escape the bullets. It was one of many, many massacres.