Wrong. That's because the only part of Indian history you know of had to do with British India. I can bet you know nothing about the Mauryan empire, Gupta empire, Delhi sultanate, Mughal empire.... each of them lasted much longer then British empire. A north Indian would have a much easier time talking to a Pakistani (an even a Bangladeshi) then say a south Indian (say Tamil). North Indians and Pakistani share same language and cultural habits. Same with Bengalis from India and Bangladeshis.
Quite familiar with each. While each may have lasted longer than British Empire, with rare exceptions they expanded from a small base, conquered a large area they controlled for only a relatively brief time, then contracted. AFAIK, none ever controlled the full extent of the territory of the British raj.
My point was probably not worded well. I was trying to say that the inhabitants of India did indeed not have much in common with each other more than with Pakistanis or Bengalis. IOW, all three countries are not “normal” nation-states in the sense France and Germany are.
They’re somewhat arbitrary collections of peoples who have little more in common with each other than with those across the (somewhat artificial) borders.
In many cases those borders run where they do based on the whim of a particular Rajah. If that isn’t “artificial” I can’t see what would be.