Responsibility for the partition of India continues to spark much heated debate. Among historians, some hold the British squarely responsible while others put the blame on the rift between Hindus and Muslims. Historians on the Left have argued that the partition was the result of both greed and convenience when capitalist supporters of the Congress struck a deal with their metropolitan counterparts.

More lately, historians have argued that Congress leaders chose to have a strong Centre, rather than share power with the League. The popular perception is that lust for quick and easy power prompted leaders to settle for a hasty and imperfect division.

It is also well known that both Gandhi and the Congress had stoutly opposed the two-nation theory and were against the Partition.

Gandhi in fact proposed to the Viceroy that Jinnah be appointed interim Prime Minister, in the hope that this would satisfy his ambition and wean him away from his insistence on Pakistan. Mountbatten noted that this pleased Jinnah’s vanity. However, Congress leaders were worried that if the Congress opted out of the constitutional arena, that would leave it open to reactionary forces.

Further, Pakistan could no longer be called off by appeasing Jinnah; there were leaders in the Muslim League who would stand for it. There was also the question whether Jinnah was sincere in his desire for a settlement. Accordingly, Gandhi withdrew his offer.

By the spring of 1947 leaders realised that reconciliation with communal parties was futile. Nehru described Jinnah to Hydari: “We are up against something which is neither political, nor economic, nor reasonable, nor logical.” Patel was also clear that there would be no more appeasement of the Muslim League.

The alternative to partition was imposing unity by force. P. D. Tandon, Congress leader and Speaker of the UP Assembly, was an active proponent of this view. But Congress leaders chose to accept Pakistan rather than compel unity.