Most of these things are known to members of this board. This is the gist of the arguments I have been putting forth on another board to make people understand the reasons behind partition. Very few people think from the perspective of great-game and pan-islamism, an understanding which is so elementarily seen in all the discussions of BRF. I have been propagating this line of thought on various boards. Please to read it and suggest additional points.
--------------------------------------------------------
Reasons of Partition
1. British interests - I will give these the prime importance over the Jinnah and ML.
2. The political aspect of Islam - The fact that Deen and Daulat cannot be segregated. That in sharia, fatwa, khilat, farman etc are not mere announcements, they are legal directives. And they are treated upon by the muslim masses as the same.
3. The concept of dar-ul-islam and the real-politik of mullahs and zamindars of upper gangetic plains.
1. It was in British interest to create a state which remains their perpetual "whore" so that they can maintain their strategic presence in middle-east and central asia vis-a-vis the "Great Game" with Russia. Without these interests, Pakistan won't exist then and now and in future. The geopolitical "JOB" of pakistan is to act as a rental state for the British Empire (and now USA, britain's political successor) and increasingly China. Pakistan also serves purpose that of Military arm of Saudi Arabia against Iran (and possibly Turkey in future). All these players (but prima-facie, the british) made sure that Pakistan exists in space and times, in spite of all odds (read desire of Hindus to unify India).
It is unbelievable for anyone that British empire which quelled 1857 war of independence in one year and quit-india movement of 1942 in six months were unable to "silence" the handful supporters of Muslim league and private armies of muslim zamindars. It shows their complicity.
2. The question is what made it so easy for British to "use" political Islam in India and middle east? If history of previous century is viewed some common-sense, it is seen that the political islam is used by the west (and now by china) to their interest. This was one of the major drives for British to jump in World-war 1.
Ottoman Turkey was defeated and Islamic influence on Suez, and middle east was overthrown. By 1935, the bedouine tribesman ibn saud (with help of British and USA) was established as king of Saudi Arabia. He was allowed to conquer the territories of Turkish empire and Yemen (which included Mecca and madina). And he was allowed to conquer the Persian gulf region (which has bulk of oil).
The control of Mecca-Medina is the insurance of newly established "Saudi Arabia" against the ambitions of Persia.
Turkey became westernised. Jerusalem (Palestine) became British colony. J
ews started pouring in there. This was facilitated by holocaust of hitler. In broad terms, all so called "islamic states" had a military leader (or monarch) in close association of Ulema which is controlled by British (now US and western) interests. Thus it is established that Ulema and Monarch and hence ordinary Abdul can be used for western interests.
Now, there are two ways to buy out Ulema. 1. to give them all the pleasures and continuous mollification of their Islamic ego and glorious past.
2. Make them insecure of a "Kaafir" majority which will threaten the existence of Islam.
In India, both of them were employed. Firstly, all the races which participated in crushing the independence war of 1857 were declared as Martial races. Secondly, entire religion of Islam was declared martial. It worked particularly well in Punjab and NWFP. It was buttressed by encouraging the Ulema (based in Upper Gangetic valley) to masturbate about glorious past and their 1000 year rule over weak Hindus.
It is interesting and this again proves the point that
history is not only about facts, its also about how people choose to remember their past.
The Hindu population of Gangetic plains was deemed non-martial and effeminate (yes these are the words used by papers of royal society to describe Bengalis who comprised of the revolting Bengal army of 1857 which was later disbanded). The immediate example in front of the "officially martial" muslim zamindars and abduls were their Hindu neighbours who were deemed (officially, that is) effeminate and non-martial.
Here originates the popular image of coward Hindu Brahmin-Baniya which is still propagated in the mainstream media of Pakistan. One has to only search for youtube videos from paki news channels to understand why is it so easy to control political islam against a particular target.
One has to understand that just like communism, Islam aims for class-less and stateless society. Whereas, primary motivation of INC was primarily nationalistic, the primary motivation of Ulema and political Islam was re-establishment of socio-political supremacy of Islam in India.
One has to stop looking at Islam as a Moksha-Maarga like Sankhya-Yoga-Vedanta-Shaiva-Vaishnava-Jaina-Bauddha. It is essentially a socio-political ideology with tinge of divinity in it. Another example of such ideology which is primarily socio-political but which uses God for mass-mobilization is Socialism of Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave.
Now there are two opinions and options over how to establish and Islamic state in India (subcontinent). One is to be a part of undivided India and then capture the power by all means (democratic, undemocratic, demographic, whatever) and declare India as Islamic state. OR to ask for a separate temporary Islamic state within India which will incubate the Islamic expansionist meme into rest of India.
When elections of 1937 showed clean sweep of INC even in Muslim majority provinces, it became clear that INC in general and the coterie around Gandhi was being groomed for eventual transfer of power. Many important people of INC who did not belong to Gandhian coterie were thrown out of power-struggle one by one. First to go was M.A. Jinnah, then SC.Bose and lastly VB Patel. Clearly, J.L.Nehru was the "Chosen One", not only of Gandhi but also of British.
MAJ happened to stray away into Muslim league under the brain-washing of Iqbal and muscle and funding of Muslim Satraps of Gangetic plains. SCB strayed away into wilderness (but not without shining brightly like a magnificent lightening in stormy night before going down). Patel, when thrown out of power-equation, was too old to go anywhere and do anything. He died within 3 years.
However, in spite of this apparent understanding which is clearly seen not only in actions of Gandhi-Nehru-Wavell and Mountbatten, but also the British policy makers of London, there was clearly some deal-breakers. Gandhi was not totally subservient to British manipulation. His decisions to resign from provincial governments in 1939, withdrawing support to British war effort in WW2 and Quit-India movement in 1942 taking advantage of British preoccupation in WW2 was an act of treachery (in eyes of British). From PoV of MKG, it was opportune time. All his competitors were out of business and equation. He was the undisputed emperor of entire INC and its struggle. There was no sharing of credit and power when India eventually became free. Gandhi could develop Free India according to his vision, now that all his opposing visions were either too weak or eliminated.
However, this is when MAJ offered the services of "political Islam" to British empire. British people, well aware of internal dissensions in weakened Indian society, took that help by MAJ and political Islam, either in desperation OR in cunningness (I am yet to form an opinion here). Perhaps both. What happened thereafter is well known. There was a meteoric rise of MAJ and ML. It should be understood that the partition of India is merely a political event. It is essentially a cultural and civilizational event. This again is best understood if one sees India as a Cultural state, instead of a Nation-state.
The idea of partition (Nazariya-e-Pakistan) is an ideology which aims and aimed at total and forcible disconnection and alienation from parent Indian culture and civilization. Hence the territory which is controlled by a power which believes in this alienation was fought for by both the sides. The initial efforts were for entire Indo-Gangetic plains to be a Muslim state. Then when it became clear that Hindu majority of Upper Gangetic basin won't be allowed to go away, they settled for Punjab and Bengal. NWFP was taken for granted, of course.
Later, during negotiations and most importantly riots when it became clear that even Punjab and Bengal will have to be partitioned as well, we got the current political map of Indian subcontinent. howmuchever gaffar khan wanted, NWFP was marked as partitioned India. There is context of "Strategic Depth" in military science. It refers to region of retreat and regroup and relaunch offence in case of initial defeats. Punjab is the strategic depth for army fighting in NWFP against CAR forces. Hence Punjab had to go as well. And Sindh provides sea access to Punjab and NWFP, hence part of Sindh and/or Baluchistan had to go. According to the declassified papers, this was the minimum requirement of British.
However, the pretext they used for partition was religion, so entire Sindh and bengal were brought into equation by ML. British had to agree, it was a case well fought by MAJ. However, in negotiations and riots, British were forced to partition Punjab and Bengal.
Curiously, it was riots which sparked off negotiations. There was a huge Hindu population in Sindh. But it was not burning like Bengal and Punjab, hence no negotiations and entire Sindh went to Pakistan. Sindh should have been partitioned too, like Punjab and Bengal. It is the people who indulged in riots forced policy makers to take their notice and redraw. It was the butchers of Kolkata which saved Kolkata from going to Pakistan. Gopal Pantha, the Butcher was the local Hindu Goonda of Kolkata who became quite popular (or infamous) for his terror.
Thus, it is understood that partition is not a process which happened on 14th august1947. It simply fructified on that day. It was a long fought battle primarily by nationalists who were mostly hindus. I am not discrediting the support of countless muslims who contributed towards freedom struggle in their individual capacity as a part of INC OR some other organization. They are my and our forefathers to whom we are eternally indebted to. However the institution of Ulema had the vision of Dar-al-Islam while supporting OR opposing partition. This FACT has to be considered and remembered. Their difference in opinion about the nature and extent of dar-al-islam in given space and time led to their different actions which are naively considered as signs of nationalism today.
These are not the signs of nationalistic ideology of those institutions since nationalism is fundamentally against principles of Islam. And when Muslims are in minority, the strict adherence to principles of Islam by ordinary abduls is fervently invoked by Ulema always and everywhere. These are the factors which enabled British to use political Islam to divide India. Once created, these factors were used by British and USA to keep that elite class (which was and is rabidly Anglicised but hates Hindus to their core) is kept in power of Pakistan's polity and ISI-Military complex. This explains the acceptance of "pork-eating whiskey drinking" Jinnah by ML. This explains acceptance of whiskey-drinking anglicised commanders who continue to be enjoy power by western support and acceptance of local public.
Ulema ignores the vices of leader (even if unislamic) for greater good. Almost all the "Ghazis" and champions of Islam in medieval India were exactly like these "Whiskey drinking" commanders of Pakistan.This elite class continues to quell internal dissensions by bogey of impending Hindu invasion and danger that Islam will be in.
There is popular trend in many deshi intellectuals to pass off Deoband as nationalistic organization simply because they opposed partition of India.
The argument of Maulana AH Madani was based on Medina Charter. Hence let me put these two things in perspective.
1. Madani was gleeful that owing to defeat of Dara, Islam and Muslims both stayed in India. This clearly shows his puritanical preferences towards Islam, apart from the obvious conclusions.
2. Lets study the Medina Charter itelf -
http://www.constitution.org/cons/medina/con_medina.htm
All the clauses of the charter are made for believers and Non-believers who ave accepted the status of Dhimmi. Thus, acceptance of Dhimmi status by unbelievers (including people of book) is essential for implementation of Medina Charter.
3. What happened to this charter after Battle of Badr and subsequent conquest of Mecca and establishment of Islamic state under prophet himself is matter of independent study.
4. In his book "Composite Nationalism and Islam" chapter 17 "Fear of European Nationalism and Patriotism", Maulana Madani clearly states out his reservations regarding acceptance of european idea of "nation-state" and how it is fundamentally against "Universal Characteristic of Islam".
5. I found his concept of "Qaum" and "Qaumiyat" vaguely similar to Indian concept of Rashtra and Sanskriti in the fact that he too emphasizes on continuity of Islam throughout the lands just like proponents of Rashtra and Sanskriti concepts talk about continuity of Sanskriti.
The European idea of "Nation-state" according to him brings in concept of narrow "patriotism" which forces a Muslim to choose between allegiance between believer on "other side" and unbeliever on his side. This again goes against the soul of "medina charter" which is somehow bypassed (IMO) by Maulana in his book.
6. This is the fundamental mismatch of choice which is put-forth by Maulana as one of his chief arguments against partition - To avoid putting Indian muslims to make such choice. In other words, to avoid the split in Muslim electorate which had a chance (in his judgement) to reclaim its rightful position of (rulers of India) in short time if India is undivided. Thus the fear of ML (of loosing Islamic identity in wake of Hindu majority) was baseless in Maulana's opinion.
Hence, how justified is it to call an institution, an ideology and a man (or group of men) who refuse to believe in concept of nation as nationalists?
is it some kind of chanakiyan thing? Who the hell is wants to see renaissance of Islam what ever we have seen till now is enough. 
)