Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable

Before summarizing and underlinining my arguments, I'd like to make one thing clear- the debate is not about whether or not India and Pakistan *should* have partitioned. Its about whether the partition was unavoidable. So his first point, for example, stating that if Sikh riots happen again, maybe carving out a new Sikh state Khalistan should be something 'wise minds would agree on' is a completely normative opinion. It has nothing to do with the resolution. Its not our place to discuss what *should* have happened. This debate pertains to whether or not anything *else* could have been done to avoid the partition. And there is no debate there, it is a historically documented fact. Everyone except Muhammad Ali Jinnah was willing to cooperate, and had Mountbatten known that Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis, he would have postponded the Indian Independence Act 1947, successfully avoiding the partition. I mean, drawing the same parallel, 1984 was terrible for Hindu- Sikh relations. There was a huge demand for partition then, but since we didn't part ways, we are living together peacefully today. My opponents second point deals with the same line of reasoning, that Muslims weren't happy during Congress rule. Even if they cooperated during Khilafat and Lucknow pact, the underlying 'tyranny' of Hindus remained. That is just not true. Congress was willing to negotiate, (and so was the muslim league, except Jinnah being adamant on his demands). He rejected the Nehru report which reserved a quarter of the seats in the central legislature to Muslims, apart from introducing propotional representation at state level and a lot of other reconcillatory measures. The 'amendments' being asked for were regressive and would have been a slippery slope to a more disintegrated country on religious lines, a fact that many of the people in Muslim league understood. Again, had the 1947 act been postponded, te partition would never have happened. And lastly, again, even though I understand this has no significance in the debate, the fact is just wrong. A lot of mughals, especially Auranzeb, was known for demolishing Hindu temples and being extremely intolerant in that regard. In fact, Aurangzeb was the most intolerant of all the mughal emporers [1] [2] , he just could not have tried to combine Islam and Hinduism. This is just misinformation, I couldn't find anything on this online. Regardless, as I said, this was history. The all- India Muslim league and Congress, had they come to an agreement, (something that was definitely foreseeable given that almost all the stakeholders except Jinnah were willing to compromise) the partition wouldn't have happened. History doesn't matter. The Hindu Muslim riots in the 17th century definitely don't matter. What matters is that close to the actual partition treaty, Hindus and Muslims were willing to let go of their past and work together. No one, not the Congress, not the majority of Muslim league, and definitely not the Britishers wanted the partition. Partition happened because Jinnah, who had a huge following was unwilling to negotiate. It could have been avoided had Mountbatten known that Jinnah was suffering from tuberculosis and was going to die soon, something he confessed in the 'Freedom of Midnight'. The partition wasn't inevitable. The resolution is negated. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...