“I would have never let India be partitioned had I known Jinnah was suffering from severe Tubercolosis and did not have much time” - Lord Mountbatten upon knowing that Jinnah had died of TB.

A lot of answers have covered some really valuable information so I’ll keep it short and simple.

Jinnah and (his blind followers within) the Muslim League were the biggest reasons for partition. Britain was devastated financially after the second world war and was not at all interested in administering the cow they had milked for 200 years as it had run out of most of the milk and was now costing them money to take care of. The muslim league had started a blood bath with their demand for Pakistan with their direct action day and British just wanted to get out of India by handing over the power to India.

Jinnah was clear, the British could not leave without giving him Pakistan. The Congress and even Lord Mountbatten tried to tell Jinnah that Pakistan would be a terrible mistake but he was reluctant. He wanted nothing less than his Pakistan. With things getting uglier day by day due to riots across the country he was granted the land he always wanted.

There’s an incident that proves that he only wanted power and did not know what to do with it.

On the night of 15th August 1947, one day after Pakistan’s independence when hundreds of thousands of people were killing each other, Jinnah was only tensed about one thing: He could not find his Croquet set.

He was a terrible administrator and was always ill. His health soon started to deteriorate and just after a year of getting what he wanted, on 11th September 1948 Jinnah finally succumbed to his illness. According to his doctor, Jinnah saw Liaquat Ali and told him. “Pakistan was the biggest blunder of my life. If I now get an opportunity I’ll go to Delhi and tell Jawahar (Nehru) to forget about the follies of the past again and become friends again”.

(But since it’s an account from his doctor and not from Jinnah’s own diary of letters it’s impossible to prove if the ever really said this.)

Moments later he was being taken to his house in an ambulance which broke down in the middle of a refugee camp. It was hot, flies were buzzing around his face and Fatima Jinnah was trying to fan them away. It took them another hour to get another ambulance and reach his home where he slept for about 2 hours and woke up one last time to recite his last confession of faith and died.

(Jinnah’s funeral procession)

News spread out fast and everyone was surprised to know that he had TB. Mountbatten’s first reaction could be understood from what he said ““I would have never let India be partitioned had I known Jinnah was suffering from Tubercolosis”

So yeah maybe had Mountbtten and other top leaders known about it they’d have probably delayed the whole process of partition and bought some time and waited for his death. But personally I don’t think that would have stopped the partition, but there was s a strong chance that the league would have portrayed it as his unfulfilled dream and that would’ve probably lead to more violence.

Source: Jinnah, My Brother by Fathima Jinnah and The shadow of the great game by N.S. Sarila

Yes and no,partition of Punjab and Bengal (and Kashmir) on religious lines and the meaningless carnage was preventable. But creation of one single, strong, centralized, socialist democracy in South Asia was absolutely fantastic nonsense our congress friends wanted to realize. Let the hangover of any romantic notion of Akhand Bharat fade away and open your eyes to the scale of things we are talking about. Would you want just one seat for one fifth of humanity in something like UNO? We are more diverse and more populated than the continent of Europe. Unless the whole of subcontinent was ruthlessly homogenized and all dissent was crushed, perhaps like China, it was inevitable that separatism of some or the other kind would emerge. It was merely coincidental that Hindu-Muslim animosity was at peak back then, it could well have been Madras guys revolting against Hindi fanaticism. We already have an example of language imposition breaking up a nation in our neighborhood. What was India anyway?, a bunch of provinces and princely states held together by the British. We blame the British too much for divide and rule. Were Marathas and Afghans not fighting a medieval counterpart of Indo-Pak war? Had the British not come to this part of the world, I cannot imagine an India even half the size of what we have today. It was only anti-British sentiment that created Indian nationalism. Sure the concept of India had been in existence for ages, we were united by geography and culture. But here hadn't been a political entity that reigned all over the subcontinent that lasted long enough. Would a political model akin to EU make us lose our Indian identity?, I dont think so. Maybe we would still have Nawabs and Maharajas as titular heads, but it is not as bad as Congress socialists would have you believe. Regional autonomy with open borders and common currency is to me better than stupid fight over artificial ownership of kashmiri land.

It is my continuing quest to understand this very topic; I am currently on my - oh, 18th book - Bengal Divided: The Unmaking Of A Nation: 1905 - 1971; so I can honestly state that this is a work in progress. I have thought quite a bit about this, and am yet to come to any definitive conclusion. But let me attempt as answer at this, and take the questions asked one-by-one

Q1) What were the events that led to the inevitability of the partition?

In 1905, all of Bengal - and India - rose against the parititon of Bengal; contrast this to 1947, when a communally divided nation split. What changed in 42 short years? For this, we have to peel away the layers of misinformation and preconceived notions that still pervade our minds. It was not such a simple matter; and this is too long a topic to be fully justified in a sub-heading. To encapsulate:

The Wavell Plan - and Partition

Book Review: Shadow Of The Great Game - The Untold Story Of India's Partition

The key event - in fact, the only event of fatal importance (fatal to unity) was the 2nd world war. The refusal of the congress to assist and resign the ministries has been identified as a himalayan blunder. It wasnt; this just goes to prove how shoddy our education of history has been. The british had promised in 1914 to free India after the first world war; this was later reneged on. Further, there was actually no point fighting to free european nations when India was herself a slave. Thus, the congress stand comes across as bold and accurate: the joker in the pack was Jinnah, who colluded with the british from September 1939. This is documented history, and is not open to discussion.

As early as 1933, the British was visualised a partition; the original plan was to hive off Baluchistan from India. Thus, it was always the brits who were playing both sides of the coin. These 2 events led to the inevitability of partition.

Q2) How could these events have been averted
The fallacious impression of unity till 1920 or thereabouts glibly overlooks the existing internal tensions and pull-pressures - and the sequence of events let loose by the fall of Muslim rule over Asia; the rise of Syed Ahmed Khan, the counterbalancing rise of Jamal-Al-Din Al-Afghani among others. The only thing is that these were in a tiny minority - the Muslim classes were, by and large - against disunity till even the early 1940s. But the presence of causes of rifts was a fact, Under normal circumstances, these would have subsided with time. But the times were not normal

It was not possible to maintain equanimity; the British were hell-bent on partition. The historical record of conversations and minutes of meetings pretty much prove that point. There is nothing that anyone could have done to avert partition. If Jinnah had not approached, the Brits would have. There is suspicion that this was done once during the round table conference.

"It is of paramount importance that India should not secede from the Empire. If, however, the colony could not be held, the alternative was to keep a strategic peice of it under british control - possbily Baluchistan" - Winston Churchill, May 5th, 1945

Everyone would do well to remember that Hindus and Muslims lived peacefully from around 700 AD to 1910 AD - a matter of 1210 years. Something happened in these last 40 - 50 years to vitiate the atmosphere... and it is that something that I am hunting for... trying to understand in my ongoing quest...

This process of alienation did not start in the 1900s; it did not start by itself - and paradoxically, it was not initiated by the Brits. The existing circumstances after 1857 were utilised by the Brits; wounds were rubbed raw, and used to maintain control over the masses. Simultaneous developments - innocuous developments by and large - in both communities created further opportunities for alienation - which were tapped by the Brits. All three were players in this drama -and at this point I am not prepared to state more, as for me this is a work in progress.

While it is clear that position on both sides were increasingly intractable. we should not forget that around 1900 they were not so bad. The british policy of divide and rule has never been fully explained to us... "If amity among the various communities were somehow achieved, its immediate result would be that the united communities would join us in showing the door... Winston Churchill

Jawaharlal Nehru: Essentially these were : the creation and protection of vested interests bound up with british rule; a policy of counterpoise and balancing of different elements, and the encouragement of fissiparous tendencies and division among them - The Discovery of India

I am not a historian; but I am deeply interested in understanding our colonial history. So far as I am aware and my readings of several books on this topic goes, the partition was not a simple affair. There is a lot that remains to be understood. Perhaps the one book that comes close to giving me an understanding is the book by Jaswant Singh; especially if I read Mukherjee's book also. I would advise all to studiously avoid non-indian works on this topic - I have read both - and Indian works are far, far more unbiased IMO;

To answer your question - Partition was inevitable. Indian movement could not have gone forward without the mass struggle advocated by Gandhiji; this was against Jinnah's ego - who was increasingly sidelined. He went to London, and returned a changed man. His meeting with Linlithgow on 3rd Sept 1939 clearly indicates his unwillingness to accept anything less than partition; it also clearly documents the British attitude and strategy of Partition. Thereafter, it was relatively easy to whip up communal tensions in minority reginos; majority regions were pro-India till 1947! The 8th book superbly chronicles the way the divide and rule policy worked in favour of partition and further whipping up communal tensions...

This cannot be explained in an answer - or even in a book - as the list below will reveal. Furthermore, there are some details that cannot be put in an internet forum... This is a journey of discovery to be undertaken by everyone... if interested, please read the following material given below (preferably in the order stated)

References:

1) From the ruins of empire- Pankaj Mishra
2) Partition - The Untold Story - Narendra Sarila
3) Jinnah, Partition, Independence - Jaswant Singh
4) The Case For India - Will Durant
5) India's Struggle For Independence - Bipin Chandra Pal
6) Churchill's Secret War - Madhushree Mukherjee
7) The Discovery Of India - Jawaharlal Nehru
8) Bengal Divided: The Unmaking Of A Nation: 1905 - 1971 - Nitish Sengupta

Among Others...

Similar to this question: How could the partition of India have been averted? What were the events that led to the inevitability of the partition? Could a politician have prevented the partition, and what would have been the motivation?

Nehru, Gandhi, Ambedkar, Jinnah and Patel were all lawyers with British Degrees. You think this was a coincidence?

I call them British stooges of so called ‘independent India’..

To expect them to actually care about Indians is a joke.

Actually to call it ‘partition’ is a joke. It was actually ‘mass migration’ of people.

Anyone sensible would know that there would be mayhem and future conflicts, yet these Lawyers supported & provoked it for their own benefits. Partition was more than a ‘simple’ Hindu-Muslim issue!

And what I find funny is that the ‘only daughters’ of Nehru and Jinnah ended up marrying a Parsi, infuriating their Fathers.

Partitioning British India was not at all a serious political plan/possibility well until 1946 - so there arose no question of ‘preventing’ Partition until then. In other words, while most of us today look back at Partition as something that was a foregone conclusion for years before it actually happened, in reality it was only in mid-1946 that, after the total failure of the Cabinet Mission, Partition and the creation of an independent Pakistan became palpable possibilities.

Once the much-awaited Cabinet Mission failed to bring mutual agreements between the Congress and the Muslim League, things so rapidly and drastically went out of control on the streets that in a short span Partition seemed to the major political leaders not only inevitable, but even desirable, esp to the Congress who was tooth and nail opposed to it to begin with. Again there was hardly a way Partition could have been ‘prevented’ once that happened.

What could have been prevented probably are the haste and haphazard nature of the process of partitioning British India and ‘transferring’ power - and in extension the large scale rioting and killing and migration that happened around it. But that’s another story.

As historian Sunil Amrith of Harvard University says (here’s the podcast of his talk on Partition), while the term ‘Pakistan’ was coined by Cambridge University student Rahmat Ali in 1933, it remained a malleable, open-ended concept. Pakistan meant different things for different people for many years until the mid-1940s, and those imaginations did not necessarily encompass partitioning. In 1940 when the Muslim League passed the Lahore Resolution, Pakistan was still an ambiguous idea, and was not thought of, even by Muslim League leaders, in terms of an independent territory: “there was no sense of where, let alone what, Pakistan would be”. In other words, Pakistan was just conceived as a territory (not exactly even a ‘nation’) composed of India’s Muslims where they would not have to ‘suffer from the dominance’ of Hindus.

In 1945, as the Second World War ended, negotiations for transfer of power from the British to Indian hands began - and not ‘Indian and Pakistani’ hands. Congress leaders who were in jail following the Quit India movement, were released, but the Congress no longer remained the party that ‘spoke for the whole of India’: the Muslim League now projected itself as the only legitimate political voice of the large Muslim populace of India. There was intense political tug-of-war between the two parties. However, even at this moment none of the major political leaders were thinking of partition.

They began negotiations for transfer of power, with the Cabinet Mission being the last attempt to help bring some mutual agreement. Once that failed, and especially in the unique conditions existing then (including the acutely increased religious hate-mongering and violence, and the impatience of common citizens on the streets), Partition - or, the creation of an independent nation for British India’s Muslims - became an almost inevitable way out of the political deadlock.

Jawaharlal Nehru said in an interview in 1960: “We were tired men and we were getting on in years. The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it.”

Yes. The partition of India could have been prevented and yet freedom could be attained through the same way as the British granted freedom to its colonies of Newzeeland and Australia following the polity of constitutional monarchy which was followed by the British people themselves when they became a democracy by stripping their King of his political powers and reducing him to a mere ornamental constitutional head. Indian leadership could have settled for the same . The representatives of British monarchy in India of British origin could have been replaced by those of the Indian origin elected through general elections with universal suffrage at the Central and provincial legislatures. - for which a process had already been initiated with the Indian Independence Act 1935 and under the same elections had been held in 1937 and 1946 with limited suffrage but which had established the first national government with representatives of all political parties . The dominion status of princely states could have continued under the new Independent government of India as it was under their agreement with the British Government. The demand of the muslims and Sikhs for a separate nation could have been addressed by giving them reservation of seats as per their proportion in total population and in areas where they were in majority in the same way as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were given with full freedom to pursue their religion and power to veto any legislation that threatened their religious freedom.

The Viceroy of India of Indian origin could be called the President of India just as the present system as an ornamental head of the new republic.

The kings and nawabs of the princely states could be made the governors with hereditory rights but only as an ornamental head with the same powers as are enjoyed by the Governors of states today.

Thus a mere transfer of power from the British to the Indian could have been smooth without the bloodshed of the partition.

.

Good question. I will also not go into the question as

to whether the decision for partition was right or wrong. But without partition Muslims would have been more benefitted.There would have been at least fifty more Muslims MPs with the possibility of having Muslim PM also

and many more Muslim ministers in the Union Cabinet. There would have been Muslim CMs and Ministers. Medical and higher education facilities would have been greater for muslims. Undivided India would been fourth biggest Military and economic power

in the world.

In the sports field also there would have been many more international recognition for Indians of undivided India. In my view the short sighted ness of leaders

of both communities led to partition and hence deprivation to Muslims and Hindus both on the whole. Prevention of partition was also not possible owing to failure to see the future for both Muslim and Hindu leaders of that period.

Broad sweeps here, no detail. The problem is that the question assumes an undivided India was the default that Partition prevented. Instead, consider how remarkable it is that the current India emerged from British India.

British India covered a huge landmass that was only ever considered a single entity as a direct consequence of colonial administration. It had never been united as a political entity before and lacked any unifying identity (other than as part of a colonial unit) in 1947.

Let's deal with the easy issues first. Malaya, Burma (now Myanmar) and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) were clearly different enough to be separate countries.

What about the smaller islands? On balance, good grounds for the Andamans going to India (as the largest and most powerful successor state), the Seychelles being independent, and similar arrangements for the other islands and offshore territories associated with control by British India. Diego Garcia remains a shameful exception, but that is a different matter.

What about the 500+ princely states? What about the Portuguese enclaves? Forced assimilation (which is what happened within a decade or so) would have been unacceptable - and easily preventable by dividing up modern India into multiple states, perhaps along pre-Raj boundaries or perhaps like the existing presidencies. In the end, assurances were given and accepted that the princely states would be treated fairly (they were not). And the Portuguese enclaves were taken by force in 1961.

Note also the outcome for the quasi-independent states on the edges of India. Nepal, Assam, Sikkim, Bhutan gained independence. The same could easily have been done for Khalistan/Kashmir and the NE regions. Hyderabad State was easily viable as a separate state, as were other princely states, alone or as federations.

But in the end, it was the irreconcilable differences between the Jinnah and Nehru-led parties that made Partition inevitable. Had either side showed the same pragmatic approach as they did with the princely states question (Independence first; we sort them out later), a united India/Pakistan was there for the taking.

But would that have worked out any better than the current arrangement of separate states? We can only wonder. But at the time many observers took the view that if Jinnah/Nehru et al could not compromise and agree at the negotiating table, there was no reason to expect any different across a united India. The stakes were simply too high to take such a risk.

Allow me to please say. In hindsight everything seems clear all the blacks and whites and all shades of grey. However, without blaming our elders for whatever happened and speaking objectively. No it's not a nice thing that happened. If we could turn back the clock and if things could be set right it would have been better if this country were not partitioned. Whatever the intent of those people was, however good it may have seemed, today we have to live with the fallout. And what we do today our future generations will have to live and abide by both the partition and the aftermath. It's very easy to say it's destiny. But eventually we are responsible for all our deeds.

Partition of India was Inevitable.
Take into consideration the following 3 facts:

Religion : Religion was the main factor which induced the need of the partition. There was always a divide in Hindu-Muslim community. There was never a peaceful environment. Though they were never into direct fights but suspicion resided in both minds.

Politics : Initially whole movement was only for freedom. But as it grew ,complexities have started emerging. Movement itself divided in two parts ,one were “Revolutionaries” and the other group was trying to get the freedom through Dialogue. latter was the bunch of educated and intelligent people who were mostly influenced by English education and thoughts. They were also aware with the happenings of the current world which was getting changed rapidly( by War and freedom). They soon realized the need of setting up a political system, as the free country will also require a government. INC was born and started negotiating with British Government on various topics. They had their internal issues as well.
Mr Jinnah ,a prominent Muslim leader, who felt cornered in the congress, rose the issue of Muslim identity by setting up “Muslim League” . He raised the issue of minority representation of the Muslim community which was also true in some sense. ( there was very less Muslim representation in INC). He was able to get the support of a vast Muslim majority in very short time. He was giving them the dream of free modern Muslim state and this was the “Seed of Separation”.
British were unanimously appointed as the umpires and they had a condition of a common agreement between both the parties. INC was not agree for the separation initially but later on they were agreed as they themselves were tired for any further movement and fighting.

Region : India is/was a big geography. It had many states/provinces which needs to be dissolved for a Union creation. New states were to be made out of these provinces and there were many theories for this unification. In this matter religion worked as the primary filter. Mr Jinnah produced a theory of Muslim majority nation. He presented a stupid theory in which people were to migrate to nation as per their religion. Though there were provisions through which a Hindus can stay in a Muslim majority area and vice-versa ,it was states responsibility to take care of them. But no one was certain that’s why the great migration happened.

And thus ,Division happened.


PS: Please don’t consider me an Anti- Muslim or Anti Jinnah. I always believe in “It takes two to make a quarrel”

India would have been engulfed in catastrophic levels of Islamic terrorism and communalism that would have completely devastated and pulverized the country had the country not been partitioned in 1947.

India has 15 Muslim population and see the enormous amount of problems India is facing.

Imagine the problems India would have faced with a 37 percent Muslim population.

Muslims breed prolifically. It would not be long India would have had an Islamic majority. Such a population shift would have marked the death knell for non-Muslims.

The greatest Indian Islamic leader Mohammad Ali Jinnah (reverenced as Quaid-e-Azam by all Muslims of the Indian subcontinent) had wisely said that “Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist as one nation”. Jinnah had also correctly said that “Pakistan, namely an Islamic nation in India, was created that very day the first Hindu was converted to Islam”.

The size of India was reduced in the 1947 partition. India lost 18 percent of territory to Pakistan. India lost most of the nation's fertile lands, important places like Sikh pilgrim cities and important institutions. Most of the wealth in modern day Pakistan was owned by the Hindus and Sikhs that was stolen by Muslims. One million Hindus and Sikhs were massacred while lakhs of our girls were raped. Thousands were forcibly converted to Islam with the kalma and beef forced down their throats. 10 million fled to India as penniless refugees.

Despite such monumental loss and unprecedented tragedy, as this question indicates, India was actually strengthened by the simple fact that 62 of Muslims in the undivided India were no longer part of the country.

After partition, the Muslim population of India was reduced from 25 percent to 9 percent. Despite this fact, India has faced and will continue to endure enormous (and escalating) problems from Islamic terrorism and communalism. India's peace and prosperity has been permanently impaired by Islam.

The Islamic population of India has exploded from 9 percent to 15 percent. The Islamic population in an undivided India would have been 37 percent. If Muslims voted collectively, either independently or in collusion with pseudosecularist politicians, they could form the government. Hindus despite majority will remain and will remain hopelessly and helplessly divided.

The Islamic population in India is exploding due to uncontrolled breeding, love jihad and polygamy. Undivided India would also have been flooded with crores of unwanted Afghan and Rohingya refugees as well as self-seekers from Islamic countries (as it happened during Muslim rule). It would not be long before Islam would have been the majority religion of India. The day that would happen would have been the death knell for Hindus and other non-Muslims. Non-Muslims would have been forcibly converted to Islam or would be killed. Temples and other non-Muslim shrines would be demolished and mosques erected. Infact, Indian religions like Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism would be wiped out completely.

Considering the rate of the exploding Islamic population, it is inevitable that at some point Islam will attain majority in India. After all, Indians have miserably failed to learn from eight centuries of brutal Islamic rule as well as partition of the country. Fortunately that will not happen during the next 100-150 years. The present generation of Indians and our great-grand children may survive as non-Muslims.

Our Indian future descendants will more likely doing namaz in Jama Masjid and Haji Ali mosques instead of doing Arti in Sri Ram Janmabhoomi temple and Kashi Vishwanath temple.

We can only cry an pray for the forthcoming generations (even though WE the present generation is guilty for their misery and plight).

Bharat Mata ki Jai (in the future, this slogan will likely replaced by Islam Zindabad)

Here are the ideological underpinnings to the partition and the problems in the northeast operation, who thought it up and why.

The other answers are wrong. They are written by people who have not read anything beyond their NCERT textbooks. Read the true story here.

The criminals:
-----------------
Sir Reginald Coupland left his job as fellow at the All Souls College, to undertake the in-depth survey of Indian conditions that would be the basis for future imperial action.

Coupland travelled extensively in British India three years, surveying different areas and talking to the population at large. He gave special attention to three areas - Punjab, Sind, and Assam. His primary interests were
1. To see if Indian history and culture could be divided communally
2. What would be the form of government in the subcontinent that would be subservient to the British masters

In 1944, Coupland put his research into the form of a three-volume study of British Indian history.

This was Mountbatten’s training material.

His dirty works team had one Lord Ismay who was the courier visiting London with the latest updates. In addition, was the fact that Mountbatten and Jinnah were a couple.

Yeah. LGBT did not start recently. These two were the G in the abbreviation. That is why Lady Mountbatten found time to play footsie with Nehru. Did anyone really think she was with him for his wit? No. She was married to a twit.

By the way, the bad blood between Nehru and Jinnah started back in London when they were students in the same college.

The scheme of partition (per the book) contemplates two Moslem states in the Moslem majority areas-'Pakistan' and 'Northeast India.'
• The first difficulty in realizing Pakistan is the problem of the Sikhs.
• The second and greater difficulty is the cost of defending the northwest frontier.

In these words were the clear pointers that should an entity like Pakistan come into being, an outside force would have to be its midwife for stability. We have seen that already that the US is this midwife.

In that book he says, “The financial viability of Northeast India would be no more than a weak appendage of Pakistan. But all such material considerations are likely to be overridden and partition adopted at all cost."

Coupland also gave the reasons why India had to be divided to prevent it from becoming a world power He says India is a geographical unit. No other country in the world has such a well-defined boundary. The Himalayas to the north, west and east and the seas on both sides have defined Indian borders since millennia.

More of this diabolical man’s statements:
1. The Partition will throw India back to the condition it was in after the breakup of the Moghul Empire, to make it another Balkans.
2. This would negate the development of democracy in India.
3. Partition would also prevent a free India from taking her due place in the world as a great Asiatic power.

Today the north - eastern part of the country is the most vulnerable flank of India. To the extent inroads are made here, the precedent will be set for secessionism, large-scale upheaval and communal rife on the subcontinent. There are several layers to the destabilization in motion in the northeast.

The decision to totally paralyze and ultimately destabilize the central government was made in London-Washington and Peking. The base on which this decision concentrates was provided by the army of sociologists and anthropologists who have profiled India with the idea of using weak links to exacerbate social tension.

That is the answer to the question.

There is more
------------------

As an added wing of the intellectual bank are the church organizations, primarily the Baptist Church, the Jesuits and the World Council of Churches. For historical reasons, the church in the Northeast provides an ideal institution to launder funds.

When Indira was pushing for the non-aligned movement she made enemies in the US and UK. This was before the enemity with the Russians.

The Russian enemity was for different reasons. The Russians wanted India to invade and attack Pakistan after they started developing the N bomb. Pakistan was needed by the US to support their war in Afghanistan. Being Nehru’s daughter leads to numbness of the senses.

Indira Gandhi assassination:
------------------------------------

The design to destabilize the Indira Gandhi government was the implementation of revenge reiterated in China Card policy architect Henry Kissinger's famous post-1972 statement: "The inevitable emergence of Bangladesh . . . presented India with fierce long-term problems. Whether it turned nationalist or radical, Bangladesh would over time accentuate India's centrifugal tendencies ... Bangladesh might set a precedent for the creation of smaller states, this time carved out of India."

To break the Indira Gandhi government, Anglo American policymaking circles revived the Coupland Plan, focusing it first on the fragile fabric of the north - eastern states, and then spreading it inward into the rest of the country. In the Coupland strategy, north - eastern India would never have joined the Indian Union. It would have remained under British stewardship, a weak but pliable independent member of the Commonwealth.

The Russians finally got MI6 to assassinate Indira and later her son Rajiv. The 2nd one also had MOSSAD involvement. They trained the LTTE squad in handling plastic devices.

For the answer of the above question…first you should understand the situation of that time.

While Indian congress was united with one Independent India demand…meanwhile Muslim league wanted a separate nation in early 1937 , A other state with majority of state population is Muslim although Jinnah said that other religion are also welcome.

British saw the Muslim League demand as divide and rule, so they promoted or gave political mileage to irrelevant thing like how Hindu and Muslim were two different cultural people, In Hindu they worship Cow as Goddess which is a sympathetically religion symbol while in Muslim they eat Beef…Muslim has a monothesis while Hindi have millions of God. So they supported the demand of Muslim League.

1937 Provincial Election, Due to Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and a large number of Muslims were the member of Indian Congress, so Indian Congress won the seat in majority of Muslim state.

now the question is ,,,If Indian Congress won seat in majority of Muslim state and the Muslim who lived in India have the same conditional in Pakistan which Jinnah claim that Pakistan is going to Sovereign Religion Country which have Muslim although other religion too…IF Muslim and Hindu lived in thousands year…why not now ? Why the Partition Happened ? Was it inevitable ?

During In 1939 Indian nationalists were angry that British Governor-General of India, Lord Linlithgow, had without consultation with them brought India into the war. The Muslim League supported the war, but Congress was divided,

In Quit India Movement, they putted thousands of freedom fighter in jail, not only famous political party of Indian Congress and their member too, Muslim League Worker went door to door to convention the majority of Muslim.

1. So they won Provincial election 1946 in Majority of Muslim state, now the British Govt. didn’t deny with the position and power of Muslim League.

2) Direct Action Day (16 August 1946), or the Great Calcutta Killings, was a day when Muslim League Ordered their activist to kill and spread the riot with Hindu, in these riot thousands of hindu killed in few days (although the number of muslim killed was high because the west part of Bengal was majority of Hindu), this gave a strong message to British Govt that you could not ignore the Muslim League.

now India was going for partition…………..

Well for this I think we have to go back more than 30 years back to Lucknow Pact of 1916 where in the Muslim League joined Congress. A certain M.A. Jinnah, father of modern Pakistan was very influential in uniting Congress and the League then. Fast forward another 5 years and we see that the name of Jinnah is no where to be found and the man who is leading the freedom struggle was M.K.Gandhi.
Of course Gandhi taking over here and leading the cause from the front was necessary and in the heat of the moment he might have forgotten about Jinnah and this has resulted in Jinnah's anger against the Congress and his views that the Muslims in the nation will always be looked down.
So in my opinion the neglect attitude shown by the leaders then towards Jinnah may have been the seeds for the division of this nation.