I think the argument is that for the previous 100 years, Imperial Britain had deliberately encouraged violent divisions between the Hindu and Muslim populations as a means of exerting external control, again this is called a 'divide and conquer' policy.

Your argument is sort of like saying, just because the British gave them the dynamite, they're not responsible for lighting the fuse.

Indeed, safe handling of dynamite involves not lighting the fuze deliberately.

What happened after the abolition of British Raj was in part a consequence of it, but I would not deny agency of the participants of the warfare that ensued.

> While imperial Britain has much to take blame for in South Asia, the partition is not really one of them.

I’m going to disagree; however little direct control they exert at that point, the imperial power always bears significant responsbility for the costs of problems that accompany imperial collapse.

The problem is when we start creating stories that place groups of people as perpetual victims, or they play that rôle themselves.

It is hard to be honest about our faults and easy to blame others. Balance that against total erasure of the past - denial is rife.

The present controls the past.

> The problem is when we start creating stories that place groups of people as perpetual victims, or they play that role themselves.

Recognize imperial powers’ blame for the adverse results of imperialism doesn’t do that, because blame is not exclusive.

Considering today's Hindu supremacist government you could argue Jinnah was right to be worried about the status of the muslim minority.