Partition of India and Pakistan was inevitable

Unfortunately, my opponent's entire argument except the first line was wiped out as he submitted his response. He has asked me to continue with my arguments, and he'd respond in the next round. I'm gonna start.Alright, so the resolution deals with weather or not the partition of India Pakistan was 'inevitable'. i.e unavoidable. For me to uphold my BOP, I need to prove that it was indeed avoidable. My opponent needs to prove that the partition would have definitely happened, no matter what historical decisions were made. My arguments would touch two basic points: 1. Non uniqueness of Hindu Muslim communal conflicts2. Mountbatten plan easily couldn't have happened.1. Non uniqueness of Hindu-Muslim conflict: One of the most common defences of the formation of Pakistan is that the communal tension between Hindus and Muslims was too high for there to ever be a peaceful integrated India. This is just not true. There have been many communal conflicts, both before and after independence. The most prominant one that comes to mind is the anti- Sikh riots in 1984, the one that lead to the demand of Khalistan by Sikhs. After the death of Indira Gandhi by a Sikh bodyguard, there were riots all over the country. People specifically targetted Sikhs in the riots, making it extremely unsafe for the religious minority in the nation. They, (rightfully) demanded a separate nation for their own safety. In 2014, however, we still live together, relatively peacefully. Just because there are religious clashes at one point of time in history doesn't mean that integration of that community in the mainstream is *impossible*. A demand for a separate state doesn't make the formation of one an inevitable reality.2. Mountbatten Plan: Just for a quick recap of history, India Pakistan were divided according to the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947, whihc was formulated by Lord Mountbatten and Attlee. This was because of the high pressure for the partition by primarily Jinnah. Everyone, even Liaqat Ali Khan, the second in command of Muslim league was willing to negotiate. It should also be noted that the British, even though they did support and antagonized the Muslim league while still governing India (to ensure that Congress did not becoe the sole united freedom fighting front), did NOT want to be the one's responsible for breaking up of the Indian subcontinent. Quoting the Freedom of Midnight, "Privately Mountbatton started searching the corners of his mind for possible alternatives for Indian independence. He was personally of the view that the greatest single legacy Britain could leave behind was a single and undivided India and did not want history to remember him as the man who divided the land which constituted ‘16 million of the 52 million square mile land on the surface of the globe.’ Even his chief of staff Lord Ismay wanted India to look back upon its association with Britain with pride. "In the book, he says that that had he known that Jinnah was a critical stage tuberculosis patient, he would have postponed the Independence and thus would have avoided the partition and also the mass violence, death and unrest. Thus the partition was definitely not inevitable. It was definitely possible for us to work through our differences, given that most of the differences were antagonization by British to ensure non unity and a fragmanted opposition. The final piece of bill that legitimized the partition while most of the stakeholders were willing to negotiate. The only person who was ironwilled in the negotiation was going to die because of tuberculosis in the near future. Had the passing of the document been postponded, the partition could have easily been avoided.The partition of India, thus, was not inevitible.The resolution has been negated.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...