The quoted post deserves to be bookmarked as a masterpiece of absurdity. The only argument being presented is that Urdu developed in India, therefore Indian Muslims are its rightful owners and Pakistani Muslims are not. Urdu developed centuries before Partition when the territories that now constitute India and Pakistan were part of British India. Partition didn't erase the cultural inheritance of the populations on either side of the new border. If Pakistan had remained part of India now, would Urdu have belonged to all Indian Muslims or exclusively to Muslims of particular regions and cities? If the latter is true, then apply the same standards here and stop claiming that Urdu is the language of all Indian Muslims. Again, the demand for a Pakistani polity that contributed to Urdu's development is perhaps the most absurd part of this argument considering Pakistan emerged in 1947, whereas Urdu's development predates it by centuries. A population does not need to have invented a language or established a sovereign state to inherit its cultural traditions. Besides, Lahore became a significant centre of modern Urdu literary development. If contributions from present-day Pakistani territory are the criterion, Lahore is a pertinent example. English originated in England and is historically tied to the English but that does not make it the exclusive cultural heritage of the English. You'd never see them fighting Americans, Australians and Canadians, who equally regard English as part of their cultural heritage without claiming to have invented it. Now apply the same logic to Urdu. Shared heritage does not require shared invention and Urdu's historical origins in the subcontinent and its inheritance by Indian and Pakistani Muslims are perfectly compatible.