> partition was driven by the British The British absolutely had a role. One theory is the West needed a pliable state on India's west to guard the Arabian Sea

> partition was driven by the British The British absolutely had a role. One theory is the West needed a pliable state on India's west to guard the Arabian Sea from the Russians. A lot of Hindu politicians of the era were socialists. Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was a Fabian Socialist. What if India allied with Russia? Pakistan soon became a CENTO treaty member. The thousand year Hindu-Muslim rivalry is the main driver, however. During the 16-18th centuries, European expeditions started hitting Indian shores, initially nibbling around the edges, and Muslim power on the subcontinent was comprehensively demolished by the Maratha Empire. The British drove out other European claimants and managed to wrest control over the subcontinent piece-by-piece. Muslim elites did not mind ruling over majority-Hindu provinces for centuries. But loss of power and membership of a numerical minority creates insecurities and the idea of a separate Muslim nation started post 1857. People can quibble about the origin of the idea and who is to blame. But no one can deny the fact that repeated massive riots between these communities (which are separate communities/religions, not ethnicities) in the decades leading to the partition signaled the inevitable.